2004-11-19

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-7. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I shall now put Motion Nos. 1 through 3 to the House.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): moved:

Motion No. 1
That Bill C-7, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 2 with the following:
“replaced by the following:
“Minister” means the Minister of the Environment.”
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-7 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-7 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments are consistent, one with the other, and are all directed to the same issue. Bill C-7 would transfer the responsibility for our national parks from the heritage ministry to the environment ministry. As an aside I have to say that I never could quite figure out why it went the other way a number of years ago. However it is back and the parks are where they should be, with the Department of the Environment.
The amendments address one anomaly in the bill, which is that the responsibility for the decision making around Parks Canada is not directly and specifically appointed to any particular minister. It allows for some flexibility as to who the individual will be who will make the final decisions on the issues within that department as it affects Parks Canada.
It was the opinion of our party that was a flaw and continues to be a flaw in the legislation. We are proposing these amendments, which, as I say, flow one into the other, that the Minister of the Environment will be the person designated to make these decisions. The first amendment asks that he or she be named specifically and that occurs in clause 3 on page 2, line 6, so that the minister would be the Minister of the Environment.
The second amendment would delete clause 4. That clause, as is in the bill now, would provide that the Governor in Council, cabinet in effect, may designate a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada to be the minister for the purposes of this act. It is not specific at all. It would allow any minister, who may have little or no knowledge of the requirements of our parks and the issues affecting our parks, to be designated.
We have not had any logical explanation from the government as to why it is simply not appointing the Minister of the Environment and leaving open options that would allow the government of the day to appoint someone else. It just does not appear to be logical, which is why we have moved that amendment.
The third amendment is to clause 28, which leaves open the possibility that some other minister would be named. Clause 28, as is, reads:

The Minister of the Environment is the Minister for the purposes of the Parks Canada Agency Act until another member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada is designated under section 2.1 of that Act, as enacted by section 4 of this Act.

The first amendment asks that the minister be named. The second amendment asks that the clause, which gives cabinet the ability to name somebody else, be deleted. The third amendment, with regard to the Parks Canada Agency Act, asks for the same thing, that clause 28 be deleted.
With regard to the thrust of this, we know that the parks system is under severe pressure. In the next riding over from mine is the smallest national park in the country. At the rate it is deteriorating, it may almost totally disappear because of lack of remedial action on the part of the government to protect it. It could disappear some time in the next 50 to 100 years. That is just one example. It may be one of the more extremes.
Of all of the parks in Canada, Point Pelee National Park is at the greatest risk of disappearing over the next century, but there are any number of other parks that are under great stress. These are heritage properties that we as a government have a responsibility to protect, enhance and make available to the greatest degree possible, without damaging them, to the Canadian citizenry and visitors from foreign lands for that matter.
We have a long history of doing just that, but under this government, particularly in the last 10 years, our parks in fact have deteriorated. Our concern, then, with regard to these amendments is if we do not have the minister who is and should be the most knowledgeable, and I will repeat that, the most knowledgeable about the importance of the role the parks play in the protection of our ecosystem generally as well as specifically in those geographic areas. If that person is not the one responsible for making decisions to fight for the parks and for funding for the parks, to advocate for the preservation of these parks, if the key minister is not doing that, I think it is quite clear what will happen: a continued deterioration of our parks.
It is no coincidence, I believe, that the parks deteriorated when they were outside the Department of the Environment and under the heritage department. The thrust of the Department of Canadian Heritage was in other directions and Parks Canada was all too often a secondary consideration. As a result, we have seen in some cases destruction of parts of parks and in others a rapid deterioration.
If the House sees fit to accept these amendments, it will be in a position where the minister, who is a key determinant of how well and how extensively we are going to protect parks, will in fact be in the driver's seat, if I can use that colloquialism. The person who will be making the decisions will be the one who is and should be most concerned about protecting them.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in today's debate on the amendments by my colleague, a former fellow member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, in connection with Bill C-7.
I will start by saying that we will be voting in favour of the three amendments proposed by my colleague over the way.
Why? Because we need to make sure to avoid what has happened in the past with respect to the supervision, monitoring and administration of parks. Why do I say this? Because we need to keep clearly in mind that, before this bill was introduced, it was precisely the Department of Canadian Heritage that had responsibility for administering the parks and ensured a degree of supervision. It did so, of course, via an agency, Parks Canada, but the ministerial responsibility lay with Canadian Heritage, which also had responsibility for historical sites.
How can we agree, in any vision or policy on sustainable development and with the government's firm intention to protect the ecological integrity of an area, to any department but the Department of the Environment having control and supervision in this perspective. Well, in fact it was the Department of Canadian Heritage of former minister Sheila Copps, which was responsible for managing our parks.
I feel that the introduction of this bill, which makes official an order-in-council that dates back several months, was a step in the right direction. I do feel, however, that the motions presented by my colleague over the way have clarified the role Environment Canada will need to play if it is to respect the ecology and our ecosystems.
As far back as 1996, an Auditor General's report had some pretty sharp criticicisms of Canadian Heritage's behaviour as far as our parks are concerned.
I will quote just one excerpt from the Auditor General's report, page 7. This is recommendation 31.46:

Parks Canada should develop an effective system for monitoring the ecological conditions in all national parks

And so there were serious shortcomings. What we hope, here on this side of the House, is that the bill and the amendments proposed by my colleague will ensure that the law is perfectly clear with regard to ministerial responsibility.
In fact, as my hon. colleague said, the governor in council gave itself broad power to designate a minister responsible rather than the minister of the environment, at any time. So some limits have been set on this.
I must speak, furthermore, to the sorry state of Canada's parks. I say that because there are two conflicting visions of the way Canada's parks will be managed.
The first vision involves a desire to increase the number of areas under Parks Canada responsibility, so as to increase the number of crown lands, in Quebec among other places, of course. There is another vision under which, in view of the sorry state of our park infrastructure, existing parks would be consolidated.
I have met many Parks Canada employees. As recently as yesterday, they were in my office telling me many things about our Canadian parks system. One of their points was that our Parks Canada employees do not have the resources to do their jobs adequately.
They also reminded me about the sorry state of Parks Canada infrastructure.
Thus, we have important choices to make in coming years. Either we increase the designated areas, protected areas, and abandon the parks we already have, or else we decide to consolidate, restore our surveillance and control systems, and possibly reinvest in the parks we already have.
I hope that we can develop an integrated vision. Of course, we must protect the ecological integrity of our land, especially where there are particularly fragile ecosystems, endangered species, and habitats in need of protection, if we are really going to protect endangered species and those at risk.
Still, this all must happen in cooperation with the Government of Quebec, which has its own network of parks and wildlife reserves. Of course, they, too, need improvement, but we must do it in an integrated way and there is room enough for both systems.
It should be remembered that, whenever an area is designated under Parks Canada, it inevitably becomes federal land, that is land under federal jurisdiction governed by federal legislation.
I think that, in a broader vision, our sensitive areas, our ecosystems could be protected by relying on the sense of responsibility shown by the Government of Quebec in recent years and in recent months in particular. It has demonstrated its desire to increase the number of protected areas. Quebec is, admittedly, seriously lagging behind.
However, we must recognize at the same time that, in recent months and years, the Government of Quebec has come up with a vigorous policy to make up for lost time. I think we are on the right track. We must trust Quebec with protecting these areas.
With respect to existing parks, which come under federal jurisdiction, I am pleased to hear that the responsibility to be conferred upon the Department of the Environment will be further defined.
Also, there are parks not too far from here, like the Gatineau Park, which are under federal jurisdiction and are the responsibility of the National Capital Commission. Yet the NCC does not come under Parks Canada.
The fact is that there are currently areas such as the Gatineau Park, which, while a federal responsibility in principle, are awaiting some form of recognition from the federal government to be integrated into the Parks Canada system.
Even in existing federal structures under federal responsibility there is a serious cleanup to be made. As far as parks currently under federal jurisdiction are concerned, I think the time had come to hand the ministerial responsibility of Canadian Heritage, which has dabbled in propaganda now and then, over to a department whose role is clearly to protect the ecological integrity of our parks. That is the mission of Parks Canada.
It is therefore with great pleasure that I will support my hon. colleague's amendments to clarify the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak at report stage of Bill C-7 which is an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other acts.
In the context of committee debates on this issue, there appears to be an impression among MPs that Parliament and not the Prime Minister decides which minister has the responsibility for departments and agencies and that such organizations cannot be transferred to another minister's responsibility unless Parliament expressly agrees to such a change. It appears to me that is the nature of the amendment that is being proposed.
It is important to note that the Prime Minister has the prerogative to assign responsibilities to ministers. This also includes allocating ministers' portfolios, establishing their mandates in keeping with existing legislation and identifying priorities for their portfolios. Parliament has also given the government the ability to transfer portions of the public service, ministerial powers, duties and functions from one part of the public service or from one minister to another.
This power gives the government the necessary flexibility that it believes it needs to reorganize the institutions of government and to address governmental priorities and public needs. It does, however, not give the governor in council the power to expand or alter the powers of either ministers or departments, which appears again to be the concern that is in the amendments.
As of December 12 the Minister of the Environment is in fact the minister responsible for Parks Canada Agency. It can therefore be said that the proposed amendments merely reflect the status quo and therefore are not as serious as they may appear at first consideration in terms of the government not wanting to be able to firm up the intent and spirit of this bill and give the Minister of the Environment very clear authority.
However, the government cannot support the NDP amendments at this time and at the same time defend the principle regarding the Prime Minister's prerogative to make organizational changes. It would be the contention that the legislation and the amendment thereto are primarily technical in nature. I hope that gives another side of the amendments that are being put forward, albeit those amendments are being put forward in a very positive spirit in order to firm up and make this bill in fact work. The government understands that also.
The bill will give legislative effect to the government reorganization that was announced on December 12, 2003 as it affects Parks Canada, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of the Environment. The bill will also update existing legislation to reflect two orders in council that came into effect in December 2003 and July 2004, which transferred control and supervision of Parks Canada Agency from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Minister of the Environment.
The bill also clarifies that Parks Canada is responsible for historic places in Canada and for the design and implementation of programs that relate to built heritage. It updates the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act. The remarks I am going to make underscore the urgency with which the bill will attempt to deal with the challenges that are facing our heritage sites and Parks Canada.
Canada's national parks, national historic sites and national maritime conservation areas represent the very soul of Canada. They are a central part of our heritage, who we are and what we are. They are places of magic and wonder and heritage. Each tells its own story. We do not take this lightly. Together they connect Canadians to their roots, to their future and to each other. That is why the spirit of this legislation is an attempt to reinforce what we believe to be the true heritage of Canadians, that Canadians want to see us do better with respect to our heritage.
Responsibilities for safeguarding and celebrating heritage will continue to be shared among departments and agencies across government. I would like to assure the House that Parks Canada's organizational integrity has been and will be maintained.
Responsibility for built heritage is managed through a number of programs, including national historic sites, federal heritage buildings, heritage railway stations, federal archaeology, heritage shipwrecks and the federal role in the historic places initiative. These activities are of interest to all parliamentarians and to Canadians in general. Built heritage includes sites, buildings, and monuments recognized for their historic value.
Through the Parks Canada Agency, the Minister of the Environment has responsibilities in three key areas: management of Parks Canada's built heritage; federal government leadership in programs relating to built heritage; and a Canada-wide leadership role in built heritage.
Hon. members are probably most familiar with the first of these areas, Parks Canada's role as a steward of heritage places. Parks Canada leads the national program of historical commemoration which identifies places, persons and events of national historic significance. The program aims to celebrate Canada's history and protect associated sites.
Parks Canada administers about one in six of the more than 900 national historic sites which speak to the diverse and rich history of our country. Parks Canada's stewardship role with respect to these places and their historic values and resources is similar to its stewardship role with respect to national parks.
Unfortunately, many of Parks Canada's built heritage assets are under threat. The Auditor General's report on the protection of cultural heritage in the federal government indicates that two-thirds of Parks Canada's national historic sites and federal heritage buildings are in poor to fair condition. The same is true for Parks Canada's assets more generally, which need $140 million annually to be maintained. They only receive about $40 million at present. This is a major challenge for the preservation of these irreplaceable national treasures. All members of the House are concerned about this.
Despite strong management systems that put care for cultural resources at the centre of planning and reporting for national historic sites, the future of many of these places continues to be threatened. Repair of masonry and wooden structures weakened by exposure to our climate, such as those repairs required at Fort Henry National Historic Site of Canada, are ongoing. Coastal erosion threatens to literally wash away significant parts of the Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site of Canada.
These examples are symptomatic, not exceptional, of the state of our cultural resources and of the infrastructure that supports Canadians' ability to visit such sites. These resources, once lost, will be gone forever and with them will go their evocative testimony to Canada's dramatic past. Addressing the ongoing deterioration of resources needs to be a priority for the government.
Federal government programs relating to built heritage is the minister's second key area of responsibility. Through its leadership in the federal heritage buildings program, Parks Canada works with departments to protect the heritage character of buildings while the property is within federal jurisdiction.
The minister's third area of responsibility is to provide Canada-wide leadership in built heritage. Only a small portion of historic places in Canada are owned by the federal government, so cooperation with others is absolutely key. Government alone cannot save Canada's built heritage. This requires participation by individuals, corporations and other governments across Canada.
Year after year, decade after decade, more and more historic places are being lost. The remaining heritage buildings and structures, cultural landscapes and archaeological sites continue to be threatened. Recognizing the need to deepen its resolve to protect built heritage, the Government of Canada has responded with the launch of the historic places initiative, the most significant conservation effort related to historic sites in our national history.
The profound nature of what we are talking about with respect to the spirit of the bill is a subject that crosses all partisan lines of the House. It is of interest to all Canadians, be they new immigrants or those who have seen the traditions through generations of immigration to this great country.
I am confident that all members of the House will support not only the spirit but the substantive nature of the changes that are part of the bill. I hope the bill will carry unanimously as it really symbolizes what we as Canadians believe in, in terms of protecting our heritage.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I understand that Bill C-7 is a technical amendment, a minor technical bill to move Parks Canada Agency from the Department of Canadian Heritage to the Ministry of the Environment.
While my party sees no reason not to support this legislation, I believe it is appropriate to put on the record a number of concerns that the federal government should be aware of in transferring Parks Canada Agency to the Ministry of the Environment.
It has been noted previously in the House that many of the problems that have come to be associated with the poor administration in running our national parks had more to do with the personal failings of the previous minister of Canadian Heritage than in the original intent of Parks Canada Agency being under the purview of Canadian Heritage. I hope that in the haste to distance Parks Canada from the previous minister Parliament is not creating greater problems by putting the environment ministry in charge.
I appreciate that naming the Minister of the Environment as the minister responsible for the purposes of the Parks Canada Agency Act is a transitional provision. Normally, giving any additional power to cabinet and away from Parliament is bad for democracy. It contributes to the democratic deficit which has been accelerated by the Prime Minister. In this case it may prove to be quite necessary to have a sober second thought clause. That is a clause designating which minister and which ministry should be ultimately responsible for policy governing national parks in Canada.
I make this observation based on the example that the people in Ontario have had to face as a consequence of the decision to move some traditional activities as well as traditional responsibilities from their respective departments to the Ontario ministry of the environment. In each of the instances to which I intend to draw attention, the results for the public have been an unmitigated disaster. It would serve no useful purpose for the federal government to repeat the mistakes that are now occurring in the province of Ontario. It is unfortunate that the problems that have been created are all because the Ontario ministry of the environment is involved and because of the way it has interpreted its mandate.
The Ottawa Valley has a proud heritage when it comes to the lumber industry. The decision to move activities normally associated with the industry to the ministry of the environment has caused undue financial hardship as well as job loss to the small sawmill owners of eastern Ontario. I know our friends in northern Ontario are watching to see what is happening here because if we do not stop the attack on sawmills in eastern Ontario, they will be next and they know it.
The Ontario ministry of the environment has taken the position that sawdust is no longer an industrial product. In its mind it is now an industrial waste. The environment ministry has taken that position and now views sawmill owners as being guilty of producing this so-called industrial waste, without the benefit of due process. When asked in court to produce scientific evidence to support the ministry's position, the government lawyer has asked for adjournment after adjournment. This in turn has racked up thousands of dollars in legal bills with postponement after postponement.
Small business does not have the same deep pockets as government. Faced with work orders from the ministry of $40,000, $50,000 or $100,000, as well as mounting legal bills, many small business employers are shutting their doors. Some of these are third or fourth generation family businesses.
Never mind that their product, sawdust, can even be found here in the flower beds on Parliament Hill. Never mind the fact that sawdust is used in many products, such as particle board, which is used in construction, furniture, kitchen cabinets, and products like fuel pellets. It is even used as an ingredient in foodstuffs.
I have stood side by side in court with some of our small sawmill producers. Forcing everyday hardworking citizens into court is wrong.
The decision to remove the administration of the nutrient management act from the department of agriculture to the ministry of the environment has had an equally disastrous effect on farmers in Ontario. With the nutrient management act, water regulations and BSE, farmers are quickly becoming an endangered species. Perhaps farmers could qualify for assistance as endangered species because they sure are not seeing it from government programs.
I have drawn attention to these examples because this so-called housekeeping legislation is transferring our national parks to the ministry of the environment. The record speaks for itself when it comes to activities of ministry of the environment. There needs to be a balance between the desire to preserve the natural heritage in our national parks and the enjoyment of that legacy.
Another example of the chaos that is created when environmental zealots take control is the decision to transfer the responsibility for safe drinking water from the Ministry of Health in Ontario to that same ministry of the environment. Campgrounds, rural churches, community centres, restaurants, any small public facility all face either excessive charges or closure from costly, unworkable regulations. While the minister admits these new regulations are onerous, she still intends to ram them down the throats of rural residents. Delaying the implementation of the new regulations and hoping the anger dies down seems to be the plan with the latest announcement on this issue.
If anyone does not understand the rural revolution that is happening in Ontario and the need for rural people to fight back against government, one need only look no further that the actions of the ministry of the environment to know that rural Canada is at a breaking point when it comes to government intervention. Canadians have traditionally pursued heritage activities. Heritage activities like hunting, fishing, and logging are at odds with certain environmental fanatics who refuse to accept the fact that these traditional heritage activities are legitimate pursuits.
While the government has promised to strengthen the focus on the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks, what does the phrase ecological integrity actually mean? Does it mean that under a ministry of the environment mandate, people will be barred from our national parks?
When I was the official opposition critic for Canadian Heritage, I was approached by snowmobile clubs that had legitimate concerns that the creation of a new national marine park along the north shore of Lake Superior would shut down a major snowmobile trail that links northwestern Ontario with the rest of the province. Can the concerns of snowmobiles and their owners be accommodated by a department of the environment in the same way that Canadian Heritage would?
I urge the government to move slowly and cautiously when it comes to our national parks. For most Canadians, it is our outdoor legacy that really sets this nation apart from all other countries. I look forward to monitoring the way in which the ministry of the environment, or whatever ministry is finally named, handles its mandate when it comes to Canadian heritage, both natural and historic.
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate this morning on the motions to amend Bill C-7, which is the act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other acts.
As a member of the New Democratic Party, I strongly support Bill C-7, because I think this is a long overdue change to put Parks Canada back with the Minister of the Environment. However, I have some concerns about making that a permanent decision and ensuring that responsibility stays with the Minister of the Environment. The motions now before us now address that. We want to ensure that the Minister of the Environment continues to have the responsibility for Parks Canada.
We want to ensure that person who has the expertise and who has concern for the biodiversity of Canada and for the ecological concerns in Canada maintains the responsibility for our parks, as they are a key aspect of the policies around the environment.
We are also concerned about the constant shifting of the responsibility for Parks Canada. Some years ago it was with Environment Canada. It shifted to Canadian Heritage. Now it is shifting back to the Minister of the Environment. Each time we do that, we spend valuable dollars that could be spent on building and maintaining our parks and infrastructure in our parks, which is always in jeopardy and has always been underfunded. We want to avoid those changes which constantly add to the problems of our park system. We think the Minister of the Environment is the key person to look after parks and that is where responsibility for that should lie.
We want to avoid those changes which constantly add to the problems of our park system. We think the Minister of the Environment is the key person to look after parks and that is where responsibility for that should lie.
Earlier it was suggested that this might be some attempt to limit the power of the Prime Minister to appoint the minister. We are saying nothing about the Prime Minister's ability to appoint the Minister of the Environment. All we are saying is that the Minister of the Environment should be the cabinet minister who has responsibility for parks. We want to ensure that responsibility remains with that minister.
Furthermore, we think that if there is to be some change in this, given the importance of it, the House should have some say in that decision. That is why we suggest that the ability of the cabinet, the governor in council, to shift the parks mandate from one ministry to another without seeking the consent of the House should be removed from the bill, and one of the motions addresses that issue.
Parks are a key issue for Canadians and a key part of our Canadian heritage and our sensibilities as Canadians. Our natural areas are important to us. They are a spiritual place for Canadians. They are a place where we go for recreation and where we celebrate the natural beauty of the country. We want to ensure that central place in the psyche of Canadians is recognized by the legislation before us. We think that ensuring the House has a say in where that responsibility lies and a continuing say in where it lies will address that.
We also want to ensure that people with expertise in ecological integrity and other ecological issues can have the responsibility for parks. That is why we think it is important that this function remain with the Minister of the Environment.
It is part of an overall strategy. Parks are not something that is isolated that can be shifted around willy-nilly from ministry to ministry. We have fought long and hard to ensure that the responsibility for our parks is seen as part of a broad environmental strategy for Canada, a broad strategy of biodiversity in Canada. We want to ensure that the parks remain with the appropriate minister for that. Clearly for us, that is the Minister of the Environment.
Bill C-7 addresses some important issues, important issues that the NDP has always supported. We have always believed that the environment department should have responsibility for national parks. Our critic, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, has spoken very strongly in the House and in committee on that issue.
We think this shift supports the biodiversity goals that we have. Centralizing responsibility for agencies concerned with biodiversity ensures for a more coherent strategy and communication. Park Canada Agency will join the Canadian Wildlife Service, the biodiversity convention office, in the environmental umbrella. We think that is a very appropriate place for it to be because it is linked intimately with those other agencies and offices.
In contrast, the Ministry of Canadian Heritage has no other responsibilities for biodiversity. We think this is a really crucial move, a key one which makes logical sense and gives the biodiversity issues their appropriate place.
This shift also resonates with our philosophy of national parks as wilderness areas. Parks Canada Agency's most sacred charge is to protect our national parks. We view many of these as wilderness areas, biologically diverse places where Canadians can connect and identify with nature.
Our parks are places where Canadians go for recreation. It is a spiritual trek for many Canadians. It is not just recreation in the sense of diversion, sports playing, hiking, or time away; it is recreation in that we get to recreate our sense of self and our sense of the world. Our parks have a particular place in that , a very central place in the spirituality of many Canadians.
Moving responsibility for Parks Canada to Canadian Heritage was widely seen to reflect a more mundane philosophy of national parks. It conflated them in with our built heritage, our human constructed heritage. Moving Parks Canada back to Environment Canada makes a positive statement about the value of our wilderness areas.
We have noted that organizations such as the Sierra Club of Canada in one of its report cards acknowledged that there was some progress on a green agenda in Canada, but concluded that the federal government's marks have been sliding in relation to protecting nature, parks, endangered species and the life of our oceans. We want to make sure that that trend is reversed. Putting the parks in with Environment Canada is a significant way of ensuring that we do better in the area of protecting our wilderness spaces and ensuring that the appropriate attention is paid to our national parks system.
Canadians do not want to see any slippage in our parks system. They do not want to see any further loss of our wilderness areas, any further decrease in the biodiversity of this country. We want to make sure that our parks, as a primary agent of ensuring those things, are resting with the appropriate people. We want to make sure that the appropriate people are doing that work and that the appropriate minister is overseeing that work.
That is why with the amendments we are proposing today we want to ensure that the Minister of the Environment is the key minister involved in overseeing and ensuring the health, well-being and the development of our parks. We want to ensure that they are protected wilderness areas, that they are places of retreat and recreation for Canadians, that they have the appropriate habitat for wildlife and flora and fauna.
We want to make sure that continues and cannot be changed willy-nilly and cavalierly. We want to make sure that the House has a say in any further changes or any further attempt to move that around. We want to make sure the House has a chance to examine exactly what the reasons for any proposed change in the future would be. We want to ensure that the ideals of Canadians are maintained with regard to the importance of parks within our country.
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the debate on the proposed amendments at report stage of Bill C-7.
I do not understand why the hon. member wants to propose these amendments. In my view, they will take away from the bill. Let me explain why I think so.
At the present time we have a minister known as the Minister of the Environment. Of course in a cabinet shuffle the Prime Minister can call a minister anything he or she wishes, as we all know. The difficulty I have with this is that we could be at a case in the future where the Prime Minister named someone the minister responsible for parks, and the minister responsible for parks would not be responsible for parks because the law says it is the Minister of the Environment who is. That is why we should not adopt the amendment proposed by the hon. member.
Furthermore, it is not impossible that in future the minister we today call the Minister of the Environment may be called the Minister of Sustainable Development or something else. In fact, it could very well be that there would be no minister called the Minister of the Environment, but we want to put the title of the minister in the bill as being responsible for the department. As we can see, this does not make sense, in my opinion. I suppose the bill works anyway if we leave the amendment in, but it does not make the bill better. It makes it worse.
We brought this bill to Parliament in order to have a framework legislation, one that is clean and hopefully will stand the test of time, but who knows, six weeks from now or some such it may need an amendment if this amendment we have today stays as part of the bill. It could be that the bill would have to come back before the House if there were a cabinet shuffle at some point, even before the bill makes it into law in the other place. This is not a good amendment.
I think what the hon. member is trying to say is that he hopes the environment department is responsible for parks in the future. That was evident in the speech of the last hon. member from the New Democratic Party. In his view, he might think that the parks flow better as part of environment than they do as part of heritage. It is a philosophical debate. One could argue it either way, I suppose.
The fact remains that we still do not know what the future minister's position will be called nor whether the Minister of Environment's title will be kept much longer. The minister might be called the minister of sustainable development, as I was saying earlier in English.
Furthermore, including this amendment would mean that in the future there could be a minister responsible for parks who would not be responsible for parks because the Parks Act stipulates that it is the Minister of Environment who is responsible.
Consequently, the amendment does not work. It is too bad, but I do not see how this will improve the bill. I agree that the bill will probably work with the amendment even if it does take away from the text in question.
Whether the bill is amended or not, a prime minister is in no way obliged to appoint a minister in the future, in the first place, and the title of the position as designated by a prime minister in the future is not cast in stone, in the second place. For these two reasons, I would encourage the hon. member to rethink this. The amendment he is proposing will not accomplish much.
Having said this, I would like to get back to the philosophical debate as to whether parks have more to do with the environment than with heritage, because this is an interesting issue. In my constituency, there is a site that I want to be designated as a park. In this case, the environmental aspect is obviously the more important one. This is not always the case, but it is in this instance. Therefore, in a case like this one, I am quite prepared to say that it has more to do with the environment and I will explain why.
The region that I would like to be designated, in the future, as a national park in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is a region that you know well Mr. Speaker, since you are a native of that riding. I am referring to the Alfred bog, in Ontario, which is about to recognized as a very sensitive ecological area under the UN Ramsar convention. Of course, in this particular case, it would more appropriate come under the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.
However, in the case of the Rideau Canal, is not quite as clear whether it should come under the Department of the Environment or Canadian Heritage. There are all sorts of physical and historical infrastructures that date back to 1825 and that have to do with a threat, as it was perceived at the time, namely an American invasion and so on. Consequently, in this case, these works are more closely related to our heritage than to the environment, although, as I said, the line between the two can be quite fine, when we are talking about vast green spaces where heritage buildings can be found, along with an ecological zone that deserves to be protected.
In any case, what the hon. member is presenting to us is the vision that the Department of Canadian Heritage or the Parks Canada Agency should have. If this is the case, he should have presented a definition of the parks' mandate, instead of designating the position of minister, without knowing whether that position will exist in the future.
In other words, he could have said: “In its definition, the Parks Canada Agency will assume responsibility for environmental issues, for heritage issues and for all other issues”. He should not have designated the position of minister, because it has nothing to do with the objective that he set.

Statements By Members
Family Physicians of CanadaHon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Canada's Family Doctor Week, which will be held from November 21 to 28. Family doctors are the backbone of our health care system and the preferred first access for Canadians seeking medical attention during times of injury or illness.
This year also marks the 50th anniversary of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. The college promotes the continuing medical education and professional development of its members.
At this time, I would like to extend particular recognition to Dr. Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia of Twillingate, Newfoundland, who has recently been recognized as the family physician of the year. I extend congratulations to Dr. Ravalia.
Riding of CambridgeMr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the people of Cambridge-North Dumfries for electing me as their member of Parliament. It is an honour and a privilege to represent the community where I was born.
I asked for this duty because I was fed up with the waste and mismanagement which still pervade the government today. For example, who in their right mind would spend $20,000 to pay out $3,500 or deny compensation to all hepatitis C victims while administrators chip away at this fund?
The lack of intellectual fortitude on that side of the House is truly astonishing. People in Cambridge have told me they are fed up and mad as hell. They needed that million dollars that the Prime Minister spent on a wasteful pre-election tour for a new CAT scanner.
The people of Cambridge have entrusted me to represent them. I will do exactly that. I look forward to working for my community, including my riding executives who are here today.
Governor General's Literary AwardsHon. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House that the Canada Council for the Arts announced this week the winners of the 2004 Governor General's Literary Awards for Children's Literature.
I am proud to say that in English language books the winner in the text section is a constituent of mine, Mr. Kenneth Oppel, for his book Airborne .
Mr. Oppel published his first book in 1985 when he was only 15. Since then he has had a successful career in promoting children's literacy. Although Mr. Oppel has received many awards for his work, this is his first Governor General's literary award.
Canada Council director John Hobday said it best:

In a world dominated by television, video games and the Internet, children's authors and illustrators have an extraordinary challenge: to create books that stimulate the senses, the emotions and the imaginations of our young people and instil in them a lifelong love of reading.

It is people like Kenneth Oppel and the other three children's laureates who have given the children of our country a very precious gift. We thank them.
Wharf MaintenanceMr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ): Mr. Speaker, small vessel harbours are important to my riding. The numerous wharves located in my area are used by fishers and pleasure boaters. Many of those wharves are, however, in such a serious state of neglect that they are dangerous, if not actually unusable.
There are plenty of horror stories, particularly concerning Rivière-au-Renard and Grande-Vallée. In the latter location, the federal government has so neglected maintenance that most of the facilities have been closed down. They have put metal fencing around them to block any access.
The Grande-Vallée municipality has been demanding repairs for the past 10 years. Today it would cost close to $900,000 to get the facilities back in shape.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must take immediate action so that the local people, fishers and tourists can start using the Grande-Vallée fishing port and all the other small vessel port facilities that are so greatly needed.
Museum for Human RightsMrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the federal government committed $30 million to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg during the last election. Consequently, the Province of Manitoba and the City of Winnipeg also committed $20 million each to enable this museum to be built.
The current federal government then promised more than it could handle to garner votes for its members so they could get elected. This promise was believed and expectations ran high.
Now the Asper Foundation chairwoman, Gail Asper, says the museum's future is under threat from the federal government's refusal to cough up $100 million to help build it, along with another $120 million for the facility's first decade of operation.
This is just another example of the irresponsible and unethical operation of this federal government, a government that will say anything to get elected, anything that will enable it to get front page headlines.
Today we know the election promises were there just to garner votes.
Hiv-AidsHon. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next week I will have the honour of co-hosting a World AIDS Day breakfast in my constituency with the Miriam Child and Family Support Group of Burlington. This is an annual event. It will be our ninth annual breakfast.
This breakfast provides the opportunity to raise awareness and to provide information to many people in our community who are concerned about HIV and AIDS. This year Kim Johnson from the People with Aids Foundation is the invited speaker.
The Miriam group provides practical assistance and emotional support to HIV infected and affected children and their families. It has been doing this since 1994. The trained volunteers have comprehensive care teams and work with other community agencies. The proceeds of this annual event go to the Miriam Child and Family Support Group.
I want to congratulate Jean Round and her great team for continuing to do this breakfast with my staff. I hope we have a great turnout. I encourage all members of the House to honour World AIDS Day and do their part to get the message out in their own communities.
Centre de la petite enfance PatachouMs. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Centre de la petite enfance Patachou in Mercier, along with Denyse Richard, the head of one of its home-based child care services, were honoured with a prestigious award on October 30.
They received a gold medal in the team involvement category at the Montérégie coalition of early childhood education centres gala, with the theme of “30 years of dreams and passionate involvement”. This great evening brought together the whole community to acknowledge excellence, celebrate the dream and share the passion.
The panel of judges selected the child care centre and Ms. Richard for their initiative of bringing children from home-based day care to take part in a day of activities in a child care centre.
This event also marked the 30th anniversary of the Montérégie coalition of early childhood education centres. Its 123 members provide care to some 25,000 children in child care centres or home-based day care facilities. Congratulations, Patachou. Keep up the good work.
Les Professeurs Pour La LibertéMr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to provide my support to a very worthwhile Canadian organization, Les professeurs pour la liberté. Like many hon. members, I am impressed by this unique group which is making enormous progress in educating the youth of Africa.
The essential goal of Les professeurs pour la liberté is to build a path that leads away from warfare, poverty and despair, and leads toward peace, opportunity and progress. Les professeurs pour la liberté is working on a program that would offer free online education to millions of Africans, an act that would reduce poverty and contribute to a more secure, equitable and prosperous world.
I would like to commend Les professeurs pour la liberté, their volunteers and contributors. By educating the youth of Africa, this group is providing a substantial contribution to our Canadian development policy of peace, human security and sustainable development.
Sir Frederick BantingHon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Londoner, Sir Frederick Banting. Recently, Dr. Banting was nominated by Canadians as one of the top 10 Canadians on the CBC TV show
The Greatest Canadian.
Sir Frederick Banting completed his medical studies at the University of Toronto and established a surgical practice in London, Ontario. In 1921 he returned to the University of Toronto to conduct medical research with his colleague, Charles Best. As a result of their research, they co-discovered pancreatic hormone insulin which was to be used in treating diabetes.
In 1923 Sir Frederick Banting was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine. That same year the University of Toronto established the Banting-Best Department of Medical Research with Sir Banting as its director.
Sir Frederick Banting's discovery of insulin changed the lives not only of Canadians, but also of individuals around the world with diabetes. Prior to the discovery of insulin, the life expectancy of a person with diabetes was less than a year from diagnosis.
Identity TheftMr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in North America. The perpetrators of this crime include organized criminal groups and individuals who collect and use someone else's personal identification to commit fraud and expedite other criminal offences.
It is estimated that identity theft costs the Canadian economy $2.5 billion annually. However, for the victims whose identity has been compromised, the impact goes far beyond dollars and cents. Not only must they deal with the financial loss, damaged reputation and emotional distress, they must also go through the complicated process of clearing their names.
This crime is so serious that the Ontario Provincial Police organized its second conference last October which brought together international identity theft experts to discuss the issue.
Given the gravity and growth of this crime, it is shocking that the government has not moved to create a separate offence for the possession of multiple identity documents. It is time the government acted to help eradicate this activity that has become so pervasive in our society.
IndiaHon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October 30 thousands of Canadians gathered at Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto to commemorate and pay respect to the victims of the violence that swept through northern India in the first week of November 1984.
Sikh Canadians have excelled in all walks of life, enriched the multicultural experience of our nation, and formed an integral part of the fabric of this country. We join with them as they remember families, friends and relatives who fell victim to the senseless looting, arson, rape and murder that took place 20 years ago.
We also express our solidarity and give credence to the belief that by remembering such dark episodes of history we are not allowing old ones to fester, but we are attempting to ensure that we learn from these episodes so that they are not repeated.
To honour the victims, candlelight vigils have been organized across North America. It was encouraging to see so many Canadians gathered at the vigil held in Toronto.
Transgender and Transsexual Day of RemembranceBill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, November 20 is Transgender and Transsexual Day of Remembrance. This day will be marked in communities around the world to memorialize members of the trans community who have been killed due to anti-transgender hatred and prejudice. We must honour the lives of people who have been so brutally targeted, and those who face indifference and intolerance.
The Transgender and Transsexual Day of Remembrance should remind us all that trans people are members of our families, our friends, colleagues and neighbours. We must seek an end to the violence they face through understanding and human rights protections based on gender identity and expression.
John MorganMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to John Morgan, better known as “Mike from Canmore” on Royal Canadian Air Farce . As everyone remembers, “Mike from Canmore” was the thoughtful Albertan in the Calgary Flames cap.
He made his first appearance during a taping of the radio show in front of a live audience in Banff. The skit featured Mike, who called in to a radio show and seemed incapable of saying anything other than his own name and hometown. It was an instant hit and became a recurring feature on the radio and later the TV show.
In 1992 the Air Farce team became the first Canadian inductees into the International Humour Hall of Fame. Morgan was also known for co-creating the CBC radio series Funny You Should Say That and wrote the pilot of the popular series King of Kensington .
Morgan retired from Air Farce in 2001, telling everyone that after 35 years of writing comedy it was finally time to step down. He was described as eccentric, talented, prolific and very funny, a performer with whom audiences loved to laugh. John Morgan will be greatly missed. May he rest in peace.
Arthabaska Red CrossMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Arthabaska Red Cross distinguished itself at a provincial convention by winning the award of excellence in intervention.
Moreover, the organization, which is actively involved in 24 municipalities in my riding, received 34 citations for the commitment of its volunteers on the “flood” team, six certificates and merit badges, and a medal for dedicated services.
These awards were won in connection with the floods that hit the Bois-Francs region, on August 4, 2003. At the time, torrential rain forced 500 residents to temporarily abandon their homes and necessitated the evacuation of 150 people.
An award of distinction was also given to Sylvie Côté, publisher of the newspapers La Nouvelle , L'Union and L'Avenir de l'Érable . Together with Arthabaska Red Cross, she organized a fundraising campaign, and $280,000 was collected to help the victims.
Congratulations to the whole team of the Arthabaska Red Cross and to Sylvie Côté for their dedication.
The SenateMr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister, western alienation is just a vague concept, but to westerners, it is a cold, brutal reality. We love this country and we are proud to be part of it, but we just do not seem to count when we run into a crunch.
We have hundreds of ranchers and farmers who are in dire straits. Unfortunately, all we can get out of this Liberal government is announcement after announcement. We just never seem to get the cash that is being announced.
The Prime Minister claims that he cannot appoint Alberta senators because it is piecemeal. No, Mr. Speaker, he will still be appointing senators, just like always. We are simply asking that he choose the first choices of Albertans instead of his own Liberal bagmen. What would be wrong with that? Why does “Mr. Democratic Deficit” not understand that?
I challenge the Prime Minister to stop being so chicken. Let him step out on a limb and do what is right for the west for a change.
National Child DayMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, November 20, marks National Child Day and the 15th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This year's theme, “A Canada Fit for Children”, highlights the basic human rights that all children are entitled to, from the fundamental right to be protected from abuse, to their entitlement to grow into fully participating members of society.
In Ottawa, the multi-faith community will host the First Annual Manger Meal, paying tribute to those who work for a better life for children and especially to men who are role models for other men and for boys.
A place will be set for an “unknown child” to remind us of the many forgotten children who are victims of conflict, war, crimes and suffering. To quote Senator Landon Pearson:

We like to say 'a child is born into our world'. Let us also understand that in each child a world is born.

May we all work for a better world for all our children.
Hon. Ed Broadbent (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians honour their children on National Child Day. It is also a day to emphasize their rights as found in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child.
All children have the inherent right to live and grow with dignity as human beings. For example, children have rights to adequate food, clothes, housing and education. While other countries have virtually abolished child poverty, here in Canada, under the Liberals, we still have over one million children at the poverty level. That is an increase since this House unanimously passed a motion in 1989 calling for the eradication of child poverty.
The demand at food banks has doubled in the past 10 years and almost 40% of those who depend on food banks are under 18. We must be serious. We must invest in childhood education, child care, national housing and an innovative job program. These are needed, and needed now.

Oral Question Period
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister's conduct during the election was clearly unethical. The minister claims she has referred the mess to the ethics commissioner.
The ethics commissioner's office has stated that it does not know what to investigate because it has not received any information. Why is the minister adding to her woes by misleading the House?
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that all the information was forwarded on to the ethics commissioner.
I find it really interesting when we hear the opposition members. They hollered for so many years that they had to have an ethics commissioner. Now that we have one, they are trying to prejudge, in a lot of the their own comments, as to what the outcome is going to be.
Wait for the ethics commissioner's report, and I will be glad to share it all with them.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the minister and the Prime Minister for days have told the House that the ethics commissioner was investigating this matter. Let me quote Micheline Rondeau-Parent from the ethics commissioner's office. She said:

--the Ethics Commissioner doesn't know what he is supposed to be investigating yet because he hasn't received any information from [the minister's department]....So he will have to look at whatever she presents to him, OK. At this stage she hasn't done that...I'm not even sure it is an investigation per se, but he will provide advice [when we receive information].

Why would the ethics commissioner's office tell us that yesterday, if the minister said that he already was investigating over the last three days? He is not investigating--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I contacted the ethics commissioner myself, personally, and asked him to give me some advice. He has the full file, and we will wait for his assurance when it comes back. I will share it with the hon. member.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, it would be nice to know when he got the file because yesterday he said that he did not have it.
The immigration minister's conduct during the election was clearly unethical. She has misled the House over the days telling us a different story. Will she step aside while the ethics commissioner reviews this file?
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the work that I am doing as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I exercise my responsibility under humanitarian and compassionate grounds all the time in response to many, including the hon. member who asked me the question and who asked me a couple of days ago to intervene on a file for him.
I will continue to do my job based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds because that is the way we do things on this side of the House.
The EnvironmentMr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government likes to play politics in provincial jurisdictions and neglect its own responsibilities. The Minister of Transport himself has made this clear. Today he is the one endangering the main rail access to the port of Montreal by encouraging construction of a hospital next to the tracks.
Is the minister attempting to change the decision already announced by the Quebec health department—yes or no?
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member may be familiar with the French language but he knows absolutely nothing about what is happening in Quebec. I invite him to look at the files.
The Outremont yard issue has been around for 20 years or so, and many scenarios have been proposed: residential development, university development, or a hospital, perhaps the CHUM. We do not know what the end use of this land will be.
One thing is certain; the hon. member is completely ignorant about the situation in Montreal. He should get the facts straight before asking questions.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has definitely removed the Bellechasse site from consideration for the new hospital because of its poor location, contaminated soil and the movement of dangerous goods nearby.
How does the minister explain that he is ready to spend $25 million to locate it 500 metres away, along the same tracks, in his riding?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the file is not as far along as the hon. member claims. Discussions are going on.
He should know that former premier Daniel Johnson and his own former leader, Mr. Mulroney, have been given the mandate to examine some sites. Now they have been asked to look at the Outremont site, all under provincial prerogatives.
We have nothing to do with the site selection, and the hon. member ought to read the newspapers, not just the headlines. This issue has been around for years. The health minister will announce a decision when the time is right, and if I can encourage the establishment—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.
TaxationMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during his budget statement, minister Séguin reaffirmed that the federal government's treatment of Quebec was unfair. Mr. Séguin used the example of Saskatchewan, which has benefited from a special agreement whereby it does not have to repay the equalization overpayment, while Quebec was offered a 10-year period to pay back $2.4 billion.
How does the government explain offering Saskatchewan a write-off and Quebec only an installment plan?
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has never been a fiscal imbalance. There never can be a fiscal imbalance. There is still not a fiscal imbalance. Every sub-national government has exactly the same access to exactly the same revenues as the federal government does. In fact, they have more access in some instances. It is completely an intellectual conceit to say anything other than the federation is completely balanced fiscally.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, does the government realize that the special agreement writing off Saskatchewan's repayment of $580 million would amount, in the case of Quebec, given its population, to a write-off of $4.4 billion in equalization payments?
How does the minister explain this double standard?
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, hon. members might well be interested in knowing how much is transferred from the Government of Canada to the Government of Quebec. This year on CHT, CST, HRT and equalization, $13.66 billion was transferred to the Government of Quebec; for infrastructure funding, a further $515 million; and for the strategic highway infrastructure program, another $138 million. The total allocated funding for infrastructure--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Portneuf--Jacques-Cartier.
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, rather than seriously address the fiscal imbalance, when it has the means to do so, the government has instead decided to increase the injustices by increasing the number of special agreements with certain provinces to the detriment of Quebec.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that his offer to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to exclude oil and gas revenues from the equalization calculation is the same as giving oil producing provinces a bonus at the expense of others, Quebec in particular, which has to include hydroelectricity in its equalization calculation?
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the equalization arrangements between the federal government and the various provinces are very complex. There are 33 indices as to what constitutes fiscal capacity. From time to time, there are differences among provinces. Differences among provinces, however, are not inequities.
Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is offering $2 billion over eight years to these two oil and gas producing provinces. In the case of Quebec, it would be $25 billion gift.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that this offer not only penalizes Quebec, which has chosen to develop clean energy, but also intensifies the fiscal imbalance rather than alleviating it?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know, if he is speaking on behalf of Quebec, that the Premier of Quebec agrees with our special arrangements with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
Consequently, the hon. member is speaking without having any idea of the view of Quebec's Premier.
Office of the Auditor GeneralMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, vengeance is mine saith the President of the Treasury Board. The Auditor General has been performing an invaluable service for Canadians, fighting back on constant Liberal corruption. For her efforts, her office has been subjected to the pettiest form of revenge and intimidation, the withholding of funding. Canadians want her to do her job, but she needs resources to do it.
Will the President of the Treasury Board stop punishing people who tell the truth and restore full funding to her office today?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject the entire premise of the hon. member. If we look at the article that reported on this today, the Auditor General herself said that she did not believe this was retaliatory. This is a conversation that we have had with the House for a long time.
When I was chairman of the committee on government operations, I put down a report on July 16 and again in November to the House which said that the mechanism for funding parliamentary officers needed to be reviewed. The Auditor--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, it is intimidation, pure and simple. In this corner of the House we are not going to stand for it.
That is terrible. The President of the Treasury Board is taking his revenge by attempting to silence the only public servant that can effectively protect taxpayers' money against more sponsorship scandals. The Auditor General is asking for independent funding.
Will the President of the Treasury Board stop these acts of vengeance against the Auditor General and establish today this independent funding?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, again I say to the hon. member, the Auditor General never said that. She said, in answer to a question on that, exactly the opposite. The issue that she raises is an important one. It is one I have been raising here. It is one that I met with the Speaker about not too long ago. I raised this with the committee. I raised it with the Senate committee on finance.
The House has to address this, but it is an officer of the House. There has been no reduction in the funding to the auditor's office, and there will not be. In fact, there has been a substantial increase.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister clearly bent the rules in granting a minister's permit to her stripper friend and campaign worker. This was done on the advice of senior adviser Ihor Wons. At the time, however, Mr. Wons was on leave of absence to work on the minister's election campaign. Three days before the election, the permit was issued as per his memo.
Could the minister explain why the political staffer, on leave from the department, was telling the department what to do?
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, the member across the way never ceases to amaze me with his hypocrisy and his sanctimonious attitude when he is asking questions. He is discriminating against people because of a profession of which he does not approve.
Is it not ironic that the member for Edmonton--Strathcona tries to impress the House with his flamboyant vocabulary when talking about breaching the rules? Was he not clearly in breach of the rules when he asked his assistant to impersonate him on a Vancouver radio station? Now he stands up here and attacks me.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, these are serious questions that need serious answers. Another member of the minister's staff, her director of parliamentary affairs, was not on leave from her office, yet was in Toronto working on the minister's campaign at taxpayer expense. Her right-hand man was on leave, but giving orders to the immigration department, while her ministerial staff was working on her campaign for political purposes.
How can the minister justify this? Will the minister finally step aside in light of these ethical complications that she herself has created?
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if members would check the blues, the minister has indicated on numerous occasions that she complied with all the guidelines. What we have here is continual badgering of the minister. The minister has said that she has complied with the guidelines. She has made it very clear. She has made it very clear that she looked at the immigration case on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds, like she has looked at any other case that might come before her.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a reply to a question from the member for Edmonton--Strathcona, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated, “No matter who these people are, they all are deserving of humanitarian and compassionate consideration”. She should have said, “If you are a Liberal, you move to the front of the line”.
Is immigration based on merit or on returning Liberal favours?
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I was going to bring a book with me, which is thick, full of all the requests I get from all members of the House, lots of them being from the Leader of the Opposition, from the House leader and from the opposition critic. I get requests every day, yesterday included. When I leave this House and go back to the lobby, there is usually somebody from the member's side waiting there.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the question to the minister was about merit, not supposition. To add insult to injury, the Prime Minister's communications director, Scott Reid, knew about supposed improprieties at Citizenship and Immigration. How is it that the Prime Minister supposedly did not?
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, all requests for intervention from all members of the House are looked upon with one reason. What is the merit of the case? Does it fit into the humanitarian and compassionate grounds? Does it fit into the Canadian way? Only on those merits of the case, did I issue a permit for the official opposition critic just before the election last year. Did I ask if this person was working on his campaign? No, I simply asked and responded to a request on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and I issued the permit.
The EnvironmentBernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, on February 16, 2005, the Kyoto protocol will come into effect. Action is urgently required. Yesterday, the Government of Quebec expressed outrage at the sectoral approach developed by the federal government, which penalizes Quebec, and it wants the implementation of the Kyoto protocol in Quebec to be carried out by the Government of Quebec.
Could the Minister of the Environment give us the assurance that the territorial approach setting an overall objective for Quebec will guide the bilateral negotiations between Quebec City and Ottawa?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my relations with Quebec's environment minister are excellent, and they will remain excellent in spite of the Bloc's attempts to drive a wedge between us.
I can assure the House that the negotiations with the Province of Quebec, as with all the other provinces, are progressing well. The negotiations with the major industries for an agreement on greenhouse gas reductions by industrial sector are also progressing very well.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, Quebec's environment minister has agreed to change the federal government's position from a sectoral approach to a territorial one and rejects Quebec's being compared with Saskatchewan or Alberta, where greenhouse gas emissions have increased considerably since 1990.
If the Minister of the Environment is serious when he says that Quebec will be rewarded for its efforts, could he give us the assurance that 1990 will be used as the reference year for the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and not 2010, as the federal government is now proposing?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the negotiations to ensure that we have a system in place which is both environmentally and economically efficient for the major industrial emitters are being masterfully conducted by the Minister of Natural Resources, and I want to congratulate him on that.
I can assure the House that Quebec's industries will be front line partners.
Cultural DiversityMr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, even though today is mid-November, according to the odd calendar of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, we still do not know the government's position on the draft convention on cultural diversity that is currently being negotiated at UNESCO.
Will the minister present this position today, in the House? If not, will she tell us how many more days mid-November will last before she does?
Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer the question.
As hon. members know, it is this government that has actually taken a lead at the UNESCO convention. In fact, at the UNESCO meeting in Paris in September, Canada was appointed as a rapporteur by 132 countries I believe.
November 15 is the first deadline for putting in proposals for the UNESCO convention and the drafting party will be meeting on December 15, of which Canada is also a member, and the intergovernmental meeting will happen in February.
If the hon. member would like to see the document, may I suggest that he bring that forward at the standing committee.
Maka Kotto: Mr. Speaker, as regards the two main issues of this convention, could the minister confirm, first, that the government will ensure that the UNESCO convention is not subordinated to the WTO agreements and, second, that it includes a dispute settlement mechanism to avoid having trade tribunals determine what is an acceptable cultural policy?
Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I think the issue the hon. member raises is very important but that is not the only issue. Many other issues need to be discussed.
As I am very interested in this file, may I suggest that at the next meeting of the standing committee we put this forward as the next future business and we look at the document before the House recesses for Christmas.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Jeremy Harrison (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal immigration minister recently allowed an exotic dancer who worked on her election campaign to jump the queue for temporary residence in Canada.
The immigration minister has claimed that she has the ethics commissioner looking into this matter but we have learned today that she has not given him the necessary information to investigate.
Why has the immigration minister been allowed to remain in cabinet while misleading the House and bending the rules for Liberal friends?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. minister has answered this question already. She indicated that she provided the file to the ethics commissioner. She indicated that she spoke to the ethics commissioner. That is the information that she has provided to the House.
I do not understand why the hon. member does not expect the minister to state exactly what she has done for the benefit of the hon. member who is asking the question.
Jeremy Harrison: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue and we are not getting the answers to our questions.
Yesterday the Prime Minister booted the member for Mississauga—Erindale out of caucus for criticizing his leadership.
While the Prime Minister is peeling back his caucus one member at a time, why will he not bounce his immigration minister to the head of the line for demotion?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is very pleased with the work of the Minister of Immigration. She is extremely dedicated and sensitive to the needs of her clientele. She does not need to take any lessons from these members.
The minister fully answered all the questions put to her and she even submitted her case to the ethics commissioner. She said so herself and we must take her word. The word of the minister means something in this House and we believe her.
Office of the Auditor GeneralMr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Treasury Board minister implied just a few minutes ago, yesterday the Auditor General said that she will not be able to do her job because the government is cutting her budget by 15%.
Why is the Prime Minister undercutting the Auditor General? Is it to punish her for uncovering Liberal waste and corruption?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, let me simply refer the member to the article, in which this is reported, in which Ms. Fraser says:

Ms. Fraser rejects suggestions that her budget is being squeezed because of her controversial reports.

What she is doing is working with us on the establishment of a new mechanism. Frankly, if members on the other side had taken the recommendations of the committee seriously, we would have solved this matter. I have not had a single member on the other side pay attention to these reports.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, instead of reading newspaper accounts, the minister should be reading the records from the committee yesterday.
During the last election the Conservative Party proposed increasing the Auditor General's budget by $50 million. What is the member's solution to the problem, the Liberal position? It is to reduce the budget by 15%. That is appalling.
What is the Liberal government afraid of? Is it afraid the Auditor General will find more Liberal corruption? Is it afraid that we will find more billion dollar boondoggles, more gun registry scandals and more sponsorship scandals?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is an ongoing tactic of the other side to put lies in the mouths of important public figures.
The fact is that I met with the Auditor General this morning. I have met with the Auditor General frequently on this issue. I am one of the Auditor General's champions on this particular issue.
In fact, the government has increased the Auditor General's budget by 35%. In fact, there has not been a nickel cut. In fact, what is needed is an appropriate funding mechanism and if members would get their heads around that, we would fix it.
Anti-Personnel Land MinesLloyd St. Amand: Mr. Speaker, on December 3, 1997, Canada led the world as the first government to sign, and this House ratified, the mine ban treaty, or Ottawa convention.
To date, 152 countries have agreed to ban anti-personnel mines. Sixty-two million stockpiled anti-personnel mines have been destroyed.
Working with national governments, the International Red Cross, UNICEF, Mines Action Canada and other dedicated organizations--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of International Cooperation.
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next week's Nairobi's summit marks the halfway point between the treaty's entry into force and the deadline for the first countries to clear their minefields.
At the summit, world leaders, international NGOs, youth activists and my own parliamentary secretary will measure progress to keep this issue on the international agenda.
Canada and many members of the House have been actively involved in the action plan for the implementation of the Ottawa treaty because mine action is a precondition for poverty reduction.
Office of the Auditor GeneralMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, clearly the President of the Treasury Board has a problem with strong women. On Wednesday, some hon. members heard him refer to a woman MP as a sweetheart. Now he has followed through on his relentless attacks on the Auditor General and cut her budget.
I ask the President of the Treasury Board to stand in his place and restore the funding to the Auditor General, because Canadians trust this strong woman, not his strong-arm tactics.
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, being new to the House, the hon. member may not be aware of the work that was done by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in the previous session, prior to my becoming a minister, in which we worked with the Auditor General to solve this very problem.
I am in fact one of her champions. I have huge respect for the Auditor General. I believe she has been bringing forward for some time a very important issue and we are addressing it.
However I would remind members that she is an officer of this House and this House has to get engaged in this question. It is not a question for the government. It is a question for the Auditor General in her--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
Child Benefit SupplementMr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, low income parents in Ontario announced that they will take the Government of Canada and their province to court because families on social assistance are being deprived of a benefit intended to reduce child poverty. The clawback of the national child benefit supplement robs from the poor under the guise of promised reinvestment in other programs to help the poor.
My question is for the Minister of Social Development. With New Brunswick not clawing back, Manitoba stopping and Ontario reviewing, will the federal government do the right thing and revamp the program in order to put the money in the hands of the people for whom it was intended?
Hon. Tony Ianno (Minister of State (Families and Caregivers), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government cares deeply about solving child poverty. It continues to work with the provinces and other stakeholders to ensure that all children have the quality of life we believe in. We put into the child tax benefit $2.4 billion a year, and it is growing. In the year 2007-08, up to $10 billion total. We continue investing in the homelessness to ensure that children with families that are living in poverty continue to have affordable housing with the $1.6 billion we put in. There are many other measures we continue adding.
Whistleblower LegislationMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 will enable the government to cover up scandals like the sponsorship scandal. The minister cleverly claims to be protecting people making complaints, but the Information Commissioner refutes this. Elsewhere in the bill, the statement is made that honest informants will not be protected.
Will the minister admit that the purpose of this bill is not to protect honest public servants, but to support a corrupt government?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I do wish members would take the time to read the testimony and the reports.
The reality is that this clause was put into the bill as a result of concerns expressed in the debate over the previous bill. It grants to this investigative body exactly the same investigative protections that are enjoyed by the RCMP and other parliamentary officers.
The assertion is akin to saying that if the RCMP holds its files confidential, which it does, then it cannot act on them. It is utter nonsense.
Now, there is a debate here that is a legitimate policy debate, which is why the bill is before the committee at first reading. The committee will have the ability to--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Stormont--Dundas--South Glengarry.
Guy Lauzon: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 would allow the government to cover up corruption like the sponsorship scam.
The minister says that this would protect the identities of whistleblowers but the information commissioner plainly states that “there is no merit to the government's argument”. In fact other sections of the bill say explicitly that the confidentialities of whistleblowers will not be guaranteed.
Why will the minister not just admit that this bill is all about protecting the corrupt government, not honest public servants?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, this is an enormously important issue and I think it is absolutely irresponsible for them to continue to come forward when the government tries to protect the employees at their request. The reality is that the protections offered here are exactly the same as the protections that are offered the information gathered by the other parliamentary officers who are not subject to access to information, and by the specific exclusions to investigative bodies. It is no different.
It is the magic of the minority. We will all be responsible for the decisions that come out of this. This is to address exposure, not to conceal it.
FisheriesMr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, recently, at a United Nations meeting, Canada was one of the sponsors of a resolution recommending action be taken on destructive fishing practices, including bottom trawling. This was done without any consultation with industry and without the minister's officials being aware of the key components.
While such a ban could be tolerated in certain sensitive areas, this one could be interpreted very broadly.
Why would Canada and the minister support a resolution that could have a disastrous effect on several of our fisheries, including the shrimp fishery?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague should know that the resolution is a non-binding resolution, and as a matter of fact, it talks about sensitive areas.
Let me tell him what I said in my address to the UN General Assembly earlier this week when I made our position on bottom trawling very clear. I said that “Canada's position is that no specific gear type is inherently destructive”, depending on how it is used. I said, “From experience we know that all gear types can have negative impacts”. He should know this.
AgricultureMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, at a recent agriculture committee meeting, the parliamentary secretary said about the CAIS program:

I guess...it's a policy problem, but...part of the problem with CAIS is...it really wasn't designed...to deal with a disaster, and we're trying to have it cover a disaster at the moment.

The agriculture minister has ignored MPs and he is ignoring his own parliamentary secretary. The minister is not listening nor is he designing farm programs that respond to disasters like BSE. I ask the minister, what alternatives is he considering to get emergency cash to the farm gate right now?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that under the CAIS program $400 million has gone to producers. That is what has happened this year.
As I said to the committee, there is a need for things to be done in addition to CAIS. We had an announcement on September 10 of an additional $488 million to assist specifically with the BSE issue, bringing our investments in respect of that particular problem to somewhere over $2 billion. This government cares about Canadian producers and it acts on that.
Aerospace IndustryMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, management and unions agree that there is an urgent need for action in the Bombardier case and that the federal government must disclose the conditions for its support. The president of the Conseil du patronat, Mr. Taillon, said that Bombardier was not asking for a blank cheque and that it was up to the government to set its conditions. In the past, Bombardier has always adhered to any conditions imposed.
Does the government intend to accept the arguments from all stakeholders, both union and management, restating the urgent need for the government to put its offer on the table and make its conditions known, so that Bombardier can respond appropriately?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to know that the government is in daily contact with the people from Bombardier. I talk to the president of Bombardier every day.
We will act on the details. We will act within deadlines, but we will make sure that we are doing the responsible thing, both for the company and for the employees, as well as for the taxpayers.
We will do this in a reasonable way, under a national aerospace policy, a national policy that has supported the aerospace industry in Quebec and that has ensured that aerospace is still—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Minister of Transport. The hon. member for Drummond.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, the president of the FTQ, Henri Massé, has confirmed that, in his opinion, Montreal was the only logical place in Canada to build the factory to produce Bombardier's new aircraft.
In view of the unanimity of the stakeholders that action is urgently needed, what is the government waiting for before revealing its conditions and putting its offer on the table right now?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that if she were aware of what is in this file, she would know that we are in preliminary discussions; that Bombardier has not yet chosen a location; and that it is waiting for some pieces of the picture. Bombardier is not expecting an immediate offer, so long as the discussions continue.
Therefore, the government and the company are working hand in hand to ensure that Canada is chosen as the site for developing this new aircraft. We are going to—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Minister of Transport. The hon. member for Calgary East.
Canadian International Development AgencyMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the CIDA minister issued news justifying CIDA aid to communist China. This is a nation that can take care of itself. It has the world's largest foreign reserves.
People in Africa are dying. They need our help.
Why can CIDA not get its priorities straight? Why?
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, CIDA has its priorities straight. We do an enormous amount of development aid with Africa, but at the same time we are very cognizant of the importance of China and our relationship with China.
China is a country in an economic and socio-political transformation that is indeed quite uneven. We have the opportunity to provide China with the expertise that is required to build governance and also to input reforms so that China, which is a world power, continues to be so in the right direction.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in October the government of Vietnam demolished a Mennonite chapel as part of an intensifying campaign against independent religious groups. From banning religious freedom to torture and persecution, the Vietnamese government is blatantly violating basic human rights.
At the same time, Canada continues to provide aid to the Vietnamese government, close to $50 million in recent years. Canadians want to know why the government is giving millions of dollars in aid to communist Vietnam, which is shamelessly violating human rights.
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost let me advise the hon. member that the Government of Canada through CIDA does not give money directly to the government of Vietnam. What it does is enable that country to reduce its poverty, to grow in governance, and we assist in a variety of initiatives to do just that.
If the hon. member and his colleagues are concerned about the human rights records of these countries, allow us to assist these countries by building their rule of law capacity so they are able to change exactly what the member and his colleagues are not happy about. Also, I might add that the standing committee is looking at this issue.
The EnvironmentDon Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour and Housing.
In the throne speech, the government reiterated its commitment to comply with the Kyoto protocol.
Since 17% of greenhouse gases are the result of households heating with polluting energies, what is the government prepared to do about replacing pollution-producing residential heating systems with cleaner energy sources?
Hon. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Labour and Housing was pleased to announce two new federal housing initiatives that will help meet Canada's climate change objectives and provide cleaner air and healthier cities, communities and homes.
Effective immediately, CMHC, Canada's national housing agency, will offer a 10% refund on its mortgage loan insurance premium when a borrower buys or builds an energy efficient home or makes energy saving renovations to existing homes.
The second initiative will allow repair work under the residential rehabilitation assistance program, or RRAP, to include energy saving renovations and retrofits that will help improve the energy performance of housing units.
Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, since 1993 the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement commits Canada to reducing the amount of cancer-causing chlorination by-products from entering the Great Lakes watershed. The government, together with the Province of Ontario, is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on water treatment systems that use a cancer-causing toxic chemical.
Why are they doing so when environmentally friendly alternative water treatment systems are available and have been in use in other countries for years?
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the member has an interest in clean water and in ensuring that what goes into our Great Lakes is monitored.
To that end, of course, the hon. member will know that the Council of Great Lakes Governors has convened on many occasions and is in constant consultation with the provinces and states to ensure that one of the most valuable resources this country has not only remains safe for people to drink but is an asset that generations to come will be able to enjoy.
Canada Border Services AgencyMr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, unbelievably, at the same remote border crossing in my constituency where a customs officer died alone on duty, another officer was left alone this week.
An alarm system was broken and the communications network was inoperative. Her supervisor, who was supposed to be backing up the officer, was not answering the phone and, unknown to her while she was on duty, a violent felon was rumoured to be approaching the border.
Why is the government imperilling the lives of our border officers and Canadian security by not giving them the tools to do the job?
Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, when these incidents happen at our borders the government is very concerned. As well, the member would know that with respect to the case where the officer was alone and certain things transpired which were not very favourable, it is under review and investigation.
Indeed, the way the Canada Border Services Agency is resourced is a matter that is always under review. We want to make sure that our officials are given the resources and tools necessary to keep our borders safe and secure.
Agriculture and Agri-foodMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Union des producteurs agricoles is again calling for assistance. The losses sustained as a result of the mad cow crisis are wreaking terrible havoc. Despite the compensation packages, dairy farmers for example are being hit by losses of $15,000 per farm, on the average.
What is stopping the government from implementing the solutions proposed by Quebec's farmers and offering them proper compensation, as well as contributing, with the provinces, to setting a base price for animals sold to abattoirs?
Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to me and to the Government of Canada to help the farmers of Quebec and those in the other regions of Canada.
We are working very diligently with the Province of Quebec and with producer groups in Quebec to address the issues that those particular producers face.
Canadian HeritageAlan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government of Canada announced that it hopes the Victoria Cross awarded to Corporal Fred Topham will remain in Canada.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage please outline those specific steps the government has taken to ensure that this and future powerful symbols of our history and heritage remain here in Canada to be understood and respected in perpetuity by future generations of Canadians?
Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to the protection of Canada's cultural heritage. In fact, our government has already intervened to delay the export of Corporal Topham's medal, which is being sold by the estate. I am pleased to advise the House today that we will also be working to support the purchase of this very important part of our history through the movable cultural properties grants program.
Citizenship and ImmigrationJohn Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. She has asked the ethics commissioner, under the Parliament of Canada Act, for some confidential advice, which I understand she said she will make public. That is fair.
Could she tell the House what is it she asked him for advice on? Is it the issuance of the permit, the unauthorized use of staff during an election, or the non-reporting of the deportee? Could she tell us, is it one of those or all of those that she has asked advice on from the ethics commissioner?
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the ethics commissioner to give me advice on whether or not I breached any of the ethical codes, but I would like to tell the member something else.
The deputy leader of the Conservative Party requested a permit a couple of weeks after the election for a personal friend. I have since learned that the hon. member's personal friend was a former Conservative candidate and has been a big political contributor to the Conservative Party. I guess I should have asked, did he work on the campaign?
The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for questions is over. That was my first question period; we survived.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsRobert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.
Interparliamentary DelegationsPaddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table two reports from the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
One of the reports relates to our meeting of the Twelve Plus Group which is a specific group within the IPU, kind of like an executive committee. We had a meeting of the steering committee of the Twelve Plus Group in Ghent, Belgium, on September 10 and 11.
I am also pleased to table, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), the report of the seventh session of the Steering Committee of the Parliamentary Conference on the WTO. It was held in Geneva on September 6 and 7.
As I have said, the second report is on the meeting of the steering committee of the 12-plus group within the IPU, which met in Ghent, Belgium, on September 10 and 11.
Committees of the HouseMarlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the order in council appointment of Robert Rabinovitch to the position of President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of certain committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 15th report later this day.
Canada Elections ActMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ind.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-297, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (candidate selection).

Mr. Speaker, in response to a large number of communications from constituents, I am pleased to introduce an amendment to the Canada Elections Act.
There is much concern being expressed about the mass signing up of thousands of members of special interest groups and political party riding associations simply to secure nominations. Many of these instant members have no knowledge of the process in which they are engaging. We want all Canadians to participate but this practice risks distorting the electoral process. In many cases instant party members are ineligible to vote in the actual election for which they effectively choose candidates.
The bill would require a minimum of a one year membership in a party and eligibility to vote in a federal election in order to vote in the candidate selection process.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Criminal CodeMyron Thompson: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-298, an act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offender).

Mr. Speaker, the bill is intended to amend section 753 where offenders can be declared as dangerous at the time of sentencing. The bill would extend that to an earlier of the following dates: the date on which the offender is released from imprisonment for the offence on parole or statutory release, and the date on which the sentence expires.
Many cases of recidivism have been shown over the last few years. These people need to be identified in a different fashion. I believe the authorities on the front lines of the prisons are the best people to do that. This bill would take care of that language.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Myron Thompson: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-299, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing principles) and another act in consequence.

Mr. Speaker, a number of ladies from the Aboriginal Rights Coalition group have asked that the Criminal Code be amended where it requires that the circumstances applying to the offender, if he is aboriginal, be examined. They feel that this is treating the victims as second class citizens and that race should not be a basis for deciding what the sentence should be for any criminal offence of a violent nature. This bill would correct that situation in the Criminal Code.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees of the HouseDon Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in. It only deals with a change in membership.
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I submit two petitions today for essentially the same issues. They are asking that Parliament oppose any legislation that would directly or indirectly redefine family, including the provision of marriage and family benefits to those who are not family as defined in this petition.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise today and present another petition on an issue that I have been raising repeatedly. In fact, I think this is the 15th time since the House started sitting this fall that I have raised this issue on behalf of petitioners.
These petitioners from Uxbridge, Ontario, wish to draw to the attention of the House that the Canadian Forces Housing Agency does provide on-base housing for our military families; however, many of those homes are substandard to acceptable living conditions, that the Canadian Forces families are experiencing in some cases dramatic increases in their rent charges.
These petitioners from Uxbridge call upon Parliament to immediately suspend any future rent increases for accommodations provided by the Canadian Forces Housing Agency until such time as the Government of Canada makes substantive improvements to the living conditions of housing provided for our military families.
I am pleased that the President of the Treasury Board is reviewing this unfair policy and truly hope that our on-base military families will enjoy reduced rent as a Christmas present.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present three petitions on behalf of the hon. member for Peterborough.
The first petition calls upon Parliament to initiate emergency measures to provide shelter for homeless people in Peterborough. The citizens of that region urge that the government respond to this request as promptly as it did in the case of the flooding in Peterborough this summer.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from the citizens of Peterborough and area, and calls for the release of Mr. Robert Latimer so that he and his family can begin to recover from their tragedy.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the last petition is also from the Peterborough area. The petitioners call upon Parliament to restore the counselling, vocational, and educational programs in the prison system. They argue strongly that prisons should not be just warehouses for human beings.
Questions on The Order PaperRobert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act, and to make related amendments to other Acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 1 to 3.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell has two minutes left for his speech.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude.
We discussed the amendment to Bill C-7 at report stage. For the next couple of minutes I will elaborate on the plan I have for my riding, namely turning the Alfred bog, in Ontario, into a national park.
As I already mentioned in the House, in the riding I have the honour and privilege to represent, there is a highly sensitive ecological zone known as the Alfred bog. It is ecologically important because it is inhabited by several unique animal and plant species.
Moreover, there are very few bogs in southern Canada. They are generally found in the North. However, we have this exceptional area in our riding, and people as a whole want to preserve it.
The United Counties of Prescott and Russell—the equivalent of a RCM in Quebec—heard about this initiative I am espousing, namely turning the Alfred bog into a national park. This is why on November 25 it will attend a large meeting hoping to find all the stakeholders in the area to put together a proposal to convince Parks Canada of the need to create the park. We all want a park to preserve this very unique ecological area and, of course, to turn it into a place where people could occasionally go provided the proper restrictions are in place to avoid damaging the ecology and so on.
My time is up. I will just add that this is the plan I have for my riding.
Mr. Bernard Cleary (Louis-Saint-Laurent, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to a certain extent, I will speak to Bill C-7 as my party's official aboriginal affairs critic.
As some hon. members will know, I have had a number of opportunities to be involved in the negotiations. The Parks Canada aspect has always been extremely important for the associations I have worked with. The explanation is simple: the territories on which parks have been established in Quebec and elsewhere have often been considered to be included in aboriginal land claims. We thus had a past life and a future life to settle with Parks Canada.
I confess I was deeply disappointed as I read Bill C-7. I would have expected the Liberal government to use it to try to provide a number of remedial measures and ensure that aboriginals who have been pressing claims for the past 20 years would find a number of elements promoting their inclusion in these parks.
Hence, I believe that the Liberal government has missed an opportunity to implement the ideas of the famous panel on ecological integrity of Canada's national parks. It gave the government a number of guidelines to ensure that the aboriginals' place in our national parks would henceforth be a lot more prominent.
As we know, tradition in parks is to expel aboriginals rather than to include them within parks as participants. It so happens that this panel on integrity has a totally different view when it talks about aboriginals. Obviously, it has put forward a number of conclusions, that I will share with you by quoting passages from a book I wrote on the aboriginal issue. This is from page 185:

The panel on the ecological integrity of parks recommends:
that reconciliation between Parks Canada and aboriginal peoples be brought about as soon as possible;
that there be recognition in the history of national parks and its interpretation of the occupation of the territory, as well as the past and present use by aboriginal peoples;
that Parks Canada invite aboriginal peoples to take part in its activities;
that Parks Canada sponsor a series of meetings in order to launch the reconciliation process to move from confrontation to collaboration;
that Parks Canada adopt a clear policy encouraging the creation and maintenance of sincere partnerships with aboriginal peoples;
that Parks Canada design, with the collaboration of aboriginal communities, education projects which will lead to a better mutual understanding and to a joint measure with a view to protecting the ecological integrity in national parks;
finally, that Parks Canada ensure the protection of cultural sites, sacred places and artifacts.

Those are recommendations from a panel that studied this file and which we would have liked to see in the bill. It was a unique opportunity, considering the time for reflection on these recommendations available throughout Canada.
One could have found a number of elements favourable to aboriginal groups who could have helped in establishing the national parks desired by the groups who want to work.
I was telling you that I had worked and negotiated for the Mingan park, which everyone knows, as well as for Forillon and Saguenay parks. All the aboriginals who live in these regions asked the Government of Canada include them in the development of the parks and to make them natural elements of these parks.
You know, we are not butterflies. The aboriginals live in these parks. The aboriginal way of life is part of Canada's history, of these parks' history. We keep asking that this be taken into consideration. Of course, it has never been in the culture of parks to keep a place for the aboriginals.
The integrity panel did a job. Will we see the results one day? Will we feel one day that the Government of Canada is responding to the will of the aboriginal people to be a part of these parks?
When we travel in the United States, we always see that, in the parks, no matter which ones—quite often, they are much less pleasant and interesting than our national parks— the aboriginals have an important place. Of course, we criticize the folklore surrounding this, but the fact remains that, in Canada, it would be beneficial if we were present in all the parks. We could pursue our way of life and show the public that aboriginal groups in Canada are alive and part of our development. We should use this resource, which will make our parks that much more enjoyable and interesting.
I did not want to make a long speech on this, but I did want to take this opportunity to point out that it is urgent we work in the direction that many people across Canada are asking. Perhaps it will not be with this bill, because it is at second reading stage, but we should act urgently.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.
In other words, it means that from now on Canadian parks will come under the Department of the Environment. Our parks have been neglected and abandoned for too long. Human and financial resources are insufficient. The Government of Canada has now decided to bring national parks back into the Department of the Environment.
I will say right away that we support the bill in principle, but that we have some concerns. Usually when a piece of legislation like this one brings about such an important change, one would expect improvements. One would expect the Canadian government to take advantage of this opportunity and give more resources, directly and indirectly, to national parks. However, it did not.
I have visited many national parks across Canada and have noticed that they were always short of resources, be it at the reception desk or the information booth. Often when one is looking for more information than what is available in the parks, one is given literature which is three or four years old and has not been updated for a while. This is the way visitors to our national parks are welcomed. I would have hoped that these flaws would have been corrected, but they have not.
As I said two weeks ago, it looks like only names are being changed under the present government. Two weeks ago I made a speech saying that the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec would now come under a different department and I did not see that as an improvement. Again today we see that moving Parks Canada to the Department of the Environment adds nothing more.
We must still keep one thing in mind. I hope that the minister who will eventually deal with the management of the national parks will not be tempted, as was the former heritage minister, Ms. Sheila Copps, to make petty politics. We were at the point, with the former prime minister, Mr. Jean Chrétien, where parks were named not for people who had made history, but instead for people who had dealings with the Liberal Party of Canada. Liberals even wanted to change the name of an important mountain, which raised considerable uproar in English Canada. This shows once again how much the federal Liberal government respects traditions in the history of our national parks.
I am still concerned that the minister responsible for the Department of the Environment is also tempted to use the national parks in Canada as an instrument of propaganda. I hope that the Minister of the Environment will want to show that he is responsible, and not do what he did earlier in oral question period, when he raised both arms in the air to try to get some applause. I can tell you that he could have gestured all he wanted in the House of Commons, there would not be many members of the Bloc Québécois who would applaud him.
I hope that the Minister of the Environment will take the time to see what is involved in the national parks, namely wildlife, trees, in fact, all ecological issues.
A major survey published recently in La Presse showed clearly that the environment had become the public's main choice. When we see today that the responsibility for national parks in Canada is being transferred to the Department of the Environment, we want a change in the way management is perceived and, mostly, respect for wildlife, birds and everything that we find in the parks.
Nowadays, the future is of great concern to the young people of Quebec and Canada, who are also concerned about the environment. Often, we hear people go on at great length about globalization in terms of millions and billions of dollars. But when we listen to our young people, we learn that they are concerned about having safe drinking water for years to come, about being able to breathe fresh air and particularly to eat good fruit and vegetables grown in the ground. These are important issues, and our young people are showing great interest in them. Just think of the number of young people registering at events relating to the environment. They are there to support these events promoting a stable and sustainable environment.
I hope that, when the current Minister of the Environment has been handed over the responsibility for the management and maintenance of Canada's national parks, he will pay attention and be very sensitive to these important issues for the 21st century. The idea is to stop playing petty politics and, instead, develop a policy for the environment and sustainable development.
Five years ago, there was not much talk about sustainable development, but now everyone talks about it, and not necessarily only on Sunday night. Everyone talks about it anytime, anywhere, on a regular basis, when we meet with young people.
This is why I caution the Minister of the Environment that he must be sensitive to the expectations of our young people, because they will remember when there is an election.
I said at the beginning that I wished significant changes had been made to Bill C-7 concerning the management of Canada's national parks. All we are hearing about today is changing responsibility, department and minister.
I hope that the federal Liberals in this House will finally grasp the important issues relating to the environment, namely the Kyoto protocol, and having a policy that is fair to Quebec, and not profitable for the great petrochemical polluters in western Canada.
As we know, there are many national parks in western Canada, and these parks are often affected by this dust and pollution from the big oil companies. I hope that the Minister of the Environment will be sensitive to the maintenance of these national parks.
We support the bill in principle, but have great reservations about who will be entrusted with the responsibility of administering Canada's national parks and ensuring they are the big winners, in the coming years, in terms of both conservation and sustainable development.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred until Monday, November 22, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it you would find unanimous consent that this matter be deferred until November 23 after government orders, which would be a further deferral.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Bill C-20. On the Order. Government Orders:)

November 2, 2004--The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Bill C-20, an act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management ActHon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr. Speaker, I move:

That Bill C-20, an act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in support of the first nations fiscal and statistical management act.
The Prime Minister has talked about a new and strengthened relationship with the aboriginal peoples and a new approach in resolving lingering and unacceptable disparity in the quality of life of first nations, Métis, Inuit and other Canadians.
The Prime Minister has stated that the challenges faced by the first nations are the biggest challenge facing Canada, and that first nations should participate fully in all that Canada has to offer, and enjoy greater financial autonomy and an increasingly better quality of life.
This bill has to do with meeting our commitment towards first nations. It deals with the work we have to undertake as partners in order to break down barriers to growth, with whatever needs to be done so the first nations have the tools they need for their economic growth and prosperity, with the respect for the diversity of first nations and their ability to find their own solutions and implement them in an appropriate way in their communities.
The proposed legislation would offer to first nations many of the valuable and practical tools that are fundamental to self-reliance and economic growth. If our larger objective is to close the socio-economic gap, it makes sense to see that first nation peoples have the same potential to capture economic opportunities as other Canadians.
This gap is quite real and widens each and every day as economic benefits and opportunities are foregone.
The bill is part of a new approach which holds that first nations must be able to plan and direct their own economies for there to be real economic opportunity and lasting prosperity.
The bill would set up four institutions to help the governments of participating first nations improve the socio-economic conditions of their communities.
The first nations financial management board would give first nations the same access to capital non-aboriginal communities have through the bond market.
The second institution, the first nations financial management board, would certify the credit worthiness of communities interested in gaining access to the borrowing pool.
The third institution is the first nations tax commission. Under the proposed act, this body would perform a role which is expanded from that currently performed by the Indian Taxation Advisory Board. The tax commission would approve the real property tax laws made by the participating first nations.
Under the more transparent property tax system proposed by the bill and with the assistance of the tax commission, participating first nations would be able to strengthen the generation of this local source of revenue and inspire greater confidence in investors and others contemplating the establishment of businesses on reserve.
Finally, the fourth institution is the first nations statistical institute. It would not only help improve the quality and relevancy of information available to deal with first nation issues, but also make sure first nation policy makers can access this information.
The four institutions established by the bill would offer first nations the fiscal tools needed to attract investment, to build infrastructure, to create jobs and to address social issues.
However, I want to stress two extremely important points. First, first nations would be accomplishing these goals on their own terms. As owners of the process, first nations would be able to develop partnerships with other governments and industry in order to strengthen their economies and improve quality of life.
Second, this process is in keeping with the right of the individual first nations to choose these tools if they want to. Even the first nations who support the bill recognize that the real property taxation and borrowing opportunities found in the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act are not necessarily appropriate for all first nations. Moreover, those who opposed the bill indicated that they did not want to prevent interested first nations from taking advantage of the possibilities this bill offers.
In the same fashion, I want to point out that while the proposed legislation would create institutions of benefit to many first nations, participation in them is completely optional. No one would force any first nation to take part in something that, for whatever reason, it might not choose to do.
First nations have diverse goals and aspirations and the government will continue to respect that diversity.
The Prime Minister and the Government of Canada said that the conditions faced by many first nations communities are one of the most pressing issues in Canada.
The Prime Minister, through the April 19 round table and subsequent meetings, reaffirmed the government's commitment to addressing these issues.
This bill will allow us to fulfill our responsibilities, to respect diversity and choice and to work together by taking specific action to facilitate the achievement of common objectives and the goodwill of all the stakeholders at the table.
I think that this bill will allow us to close the gap that exists between the quality of life in the first nations communities and elsewhere in Canada. It also improves the economic opportunities, there again in view of closing this gap.
We have a long road ahead but we are confident that we are on the right path. We are mindful of the mistakes of the past but full of hope of goodwill and a determination to arrive at a new destination and a better future for all.
I am very encouraged that members in the House will work together to see that these goals are delivered to the first nations. I thank and respect the members for their cooperation herein.
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today, as the critic for my party with respect to aboriginal matters, to speak to Bill C-20, a bill described as the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management bill.
I am pleased to indicate to the House that I am speaking in favour of the legislation.
Earlier this week, one of Canada's national newspapers published an opinion piece prepared by Mr. Phil Fontaine, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. While I do not agree with everything that my friend and colleague Grand Chief Fontaine said in the article, there are a number of matters upon which he and I agree which he has stated and which all Canadians should consider.
Canada is a modern federal democracy in which all citizens must bear equally the responsibilities and the privileges of citizenship. Aboriginal Canadians are entitled, indeed expected, to share in the governance of Canada.
If aboriginal Canadians are to be equal citizens, also bearing the hopes and dreams of this country upon their shoulders, then they must bear equally the responsibilities of governing this land and, concurrently, they must enjoy the full benefits of Canadian citizenship, including the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As Chief Fontaine has observed, aboriginal people will only be self-sufficient and free and able to rely upon themselves, if they are free and able to make their own choices. For reliance upon the choices that others make for any of us, is a denial of the status of citizenship.
Over the past many years in Canada, the meaning and the scope and content of aboriginal self-government has been much debated. The debate has for the most part been a civil one, even as it has been marked by a decided lack of consensus on many fundamental matters. However, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians need be reminded that although we may not always agree upon the scope and content of governance rights, virtually all Canadians share a desire to see aboriginal Canadians as equal partners in this marvellous country.
The Indian Act is both archaic and anachronistic. Frankly, it has no place in the Canada of tomorrow. It has not yet been replaced by a modern legislative framework only because we have struggled as a nation in our attempts to define a replacement.
The issues to be sure are complex, involving questions which strike to the heart of our polity, issues pertaining to the application of the charter, the distribution of government jurisdiction within our federal system, the incidence of citizenship, the correlative rights and expectations, which we demand of one another as fellow citizens, and the distribution of resources. These would be difficult questions among citizens who share common values and histories and origins. They are all the more difficult when one factors in the rich and diverse mosaic of Canada's aboriginal people; Inuit, Métis and over 600 distinct Indian first nations.
As Grand Chief Fontaine observed this week, people need control over their own lives and the chance to reap the benefits of their own labours. They do not flourish when denied the right to decide for themselves how they will live.
In this respect, Grand Chief Fontaine's comments echo those that one would find, for example, of the economist and philosopher F.A. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom . I have long held the view that the modern struggle of Canada's aboriginal people has been less a struggle with other Canadians than it has been a struggle against the collectivist tyranny of the Indian Act.
My position in respect of self-government and that of our party is clear. The Indian Act and related legislation must be replaced by a modern legislative framework which provides for the devolution of full legal and democratic responsibility to aboriginal Canadians for their own affairs within the overall constitutional framework of our federal state. Such legislative reform should be pursued following full consultation with first nations, with the objective of achieving a full and complete devolution of democratic authority that is consistent with the devolution of other decision making responsibility within our federal state.
Aboriginal Canadians, like other Canadians, are entitled to enjoy democratic control over their own affairs within a legislative context that ensures certainty, stability, respect for the rule of law and which balances individual and collective responsibility.
Aboriginal communities must have the flexibility to determine for themselves whether and how free market principles, including individual property ownership, should apply on reserves. This devolution should be accomplished in a manner which takes into account the cultural and linguistic diversity of Canada's first nations. Within the context of the Canadian Constitution, we should be prepared to make flexible accommodations for the protection of language and culture within self-government agreements.
I return then to the legislation before the House. It must be noted at the outset that this legislation originates not with the government, but rather with a group of visionary aboriginal Canadians who have fought for their vision of self-government and who have persisted in the face of considerable difficulty.
I make reference today to Manny Jules of the Kamloops First Nation, Chief Strater Crowfoot of the Siksika First Nation, Chief Tom Bresette of the Kettle and Stoney Point First Nation, Deanna Hamilton of the Westbank First Nation, and Harold Calla of the Squamish First Nation.
These men and women and the extraordinary team of people who have worked with them are fighting to ensure that their first nation communities have access to practical levers of self-government. Their vision is one of economic progress, of prosperity, of infrastructure development, of economic development, economic opportunity and social progress. The self-government which they fight for is predicated upon the hard work associated with citizenship: the installation, for example, of community infrastructure, the responsibilities of debt service, the administration of a property tax system and the building of fiscal, managerial and financial capacity.
The legislation would provide concurrently and balances the interests of the federal Crown, and contains provisions which would provide protections for the position of taxpayers commensurate with that of other taxpayers in our federal system.
The legislation would allow for all of these things, and it would do so without derogating from the debates which we will have in the years ahead regarding the full scope and meaning of self-government, or the scope and content of section 35 rights under the Constitution. The legislation would allow each first nation in Canada to decide themselves whether they wish to undertake this responsibility.
For my part, I fear the endless opacity surrounding the self-government debate. The many issues surrounding self-government and the meaning, the scope and content of that term will be resolved in the same way that we have resolved other difficult Canadian problems, in an evolutionary manner such as this, building upon success and responding to the distinctive needs of our diverse community. We will progress cautiously and with full regard to the intended and unintended consequences of our journey. It has always been this way in Canada and it will likely always be this way.
In closing, let us move forward. The legislation may not be the panacea for all the difficult questions surrounding self-government, but it is this. It is start and if we adopt it, some of the first nations in this country will be closer to the economic independence and the self-sufficiency of which Grand Chief Fontaine has spoken.
Bernard Cleary: Mr. Speaker, the content of Bill C-20, vital to the establishment of a new financial relationship between the first nations and the Government of Canada, has fuelled indepth discussions for about 20 years now.
Already in 1983, the report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, the Penner report, had recommended that the financial relationship between the Government of Canada and the first nations be redefined. It concluded that based on a series of failures by the trustee for Canada's Indians in the new to them area of economic development, major changes needed to be made in first nations financial management.
Later, in 1996, the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended a full review of the financial relationship between the federal government and aboriginals. The proposed initiative focused on redefining this relationship within a broader context based on first nations self-government.
Bill C-20 that we are talking about today follows on Bill C-115, commonly referred to as the Kamloops amendments, that was passed in 1988. This first legislative measure extended the taxing powers of first nations under the Indian Act to their interests in conditionally surrendered and designated lands. It stated that this land could continue to be part of the reserves and allowed first nations to adopt by-laws to levy property tax on that land.
The conditional land surrender process was abandoned and replaced by a land use designation process to accommodate leasing arrangements. Thus the former surrendered lands which by definition were excluded from reserve status have become designated lands. Consequently, when land is surrendered conditionally or designated, none of the band's interests are surrendered and the land keeps its reserve status.
Bill C-115 has opened the door to establishing a new financial relationship between the first nations and the Government of Canada. By making the above-mentioned changes, Bill C-115 made legislative changes that have twofold results: they have helped clarify the power to levy tax on reserve land by first nations governments by increasing their tax power.
I would like to emphasize that the financial institutions in the bill before us, Bill C-20, are a national initiative of the Indian Taxation Advisory Board and the First Nations Tax Commission. The first nations financial management board and the first nations statistical institute have been added so as to make up the institutional framework required to support bond issues by the First Nations Tax Commission and attract investment in the lands of first nations.
The first nations financial institutions project has been developed to this stage thanks to the national table on fiscal relations , which was set up in 1999 by a memorandum of understanding between the Indian affairs and northern development department and the Assembly of First Nations. First nations representatives throughout Canada, and officials of the finance department of Canada, Statistics Canada, Health Canada and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency were part of these discussions.
At this time, these institutions are being set up under the guidance of two first nation councils and two first nation advisory committees.
After the Kamloops amendments, in 1988, a number of events strengthened the support for the restructuring of financial relations between the first nations and the federal government, including the finance ministers conference on Indian government taxation, in 1991, the Charlottetown accord, in 1992, and the final report of the royal commission, in 1996.
In 1991, the Department of Finance undertook a review of its policy on Indian taxation and, in 1993, made public the Working Paper on Indian Government Taxation.
In 1995, the First Nations Financial Institute was created by the Westbank First Nation. It was then federally incorporated. The objective was to provide investment opportunities to first nations in order to ensure long term financing of their public debt.
In 1995, a round table of representatives from the Department of Finance and the Assembly of First Nations led to the adoption of a resolution on taxation.
The Chiefs' Committee on Fiscal Relations was created two years later to review fiscal relations between first nation governments and the federal government. It recommended the establishment of first nation financial institutions.
In 1999, the Assembly of First Nations expressed its support for this initiative when participants in its annual general meeting supported the creation of the First Nation Financial Administration, and the creation of the Indian Taxation Advisory Board to establish the First Nations Tax Commission.
In December of the same year, the agreement proposed the creation of a national round table on financial relationships, with the objective of establishing solid bases for these relationships through an exchange of information, capacity building and the establishment of benchmarks.
In 2000, the Assembly of First Nations maintained its support for the creation of the First Nations Statistical Institute and the First Nations Financial Management Board. The general assembly then passed a resolution supporting the recommendation by the chiefs' committee regarding the establishment of the four new first nations financial institutions by federal legislation. The legal validity of this resolution was questioned, since some people thought that it had not received the support of 60% of those present.
Moreover, the bill now requires that each first nation wishing to avail itself of this legislation be added to the schedule. This requirement is intended to clarify which First Nations are governed by the legislation.
Even after all these amendments, which correspond largely to their demands, the chiefs of the assembly of first nations of Quebec and Labrador refused, last week in a special assembly, to endorse the bill until there is a debate in the Assembly of First Nations.
The Bloc Québécois has decided to maintain its support for Bill C-20 because we sincerely believe that the legislation will be of benefit to a number of first nations in Quebec. To be strong, Quebec must have strong first nations with flourishing community economies.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring the views of the New Democratic Party caucus on Bill C-20 to the House of Commons at this stage.
I will note first of all that this is a repeat for me; this is the third incarnation of the bill, let me put it that way, that I have spoken to since I became the aboriginal affairs critic for our party.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: It's déjà vu all over again.
Pat Martin: As my hon. colleague says, it is déjà vu all over again. I do not mind doing that because frankly I believe that with each incarnation the bill does in fact begin to take a form that we in the New Democratic Party caucus can work with.
We had a great number of reservations about the previous incarnations. We were not at all satisfied with Bill C-23 when it came before the 37th Parliament. I believe we have articulated those views and voiced them. They exist on the record. I do not think I have to belabour the point here today to make it abundantly clear that we rejected the first nations governance act as it was and we rejected this bill because it became part of that suite of bills which was known as the first nations governance initiative. We thought the timing was poor, the treatment of it was poor, and the content of the bill was poor. I suppose one could say we were critical of just about every aspect of that bill.
However, I do recognize the advantages of components of Bill C-20. I recognize that the finance authority borrowing pool idea could be advantageous for smaller communities that may benefit from sharing the risk and the lending or borrowing ability with other larger, more stable and established first nations.
I point out that this is an idea that finds its origins within the New Democratic Party, in fact, with members of Parliament from British Columbia who worked very closely with the provincial government and B.C. municipalities to form the B.C. Municipal Finance Authority, which in a similar way gives strength to those smaller communities that may in fact be able to borrow money at a better rate and get a better bonding rating in their efforts to finance economic development initiatives in their communities.
Another aspect of Bill C-20 is that it seeks to create another fiscal institution called the tax commission. When we are dealing with first nations taxation, we are dealing in this case with the rights of first nations communities to tax, for instance and perhaps, property owners who may be renting or leasing property from them. I think sometimes in terms of cottage property in some areas.
However, there is another issue of first nations taxation that we should comment on today. While I have the floor I wish to draw the attention of the members here to a recent change in the way the government treats first nations in terms of taxation and that is as it pertains to post-secondary students.
Many of the members may not be aware, but a fundamental change is taking place. For the first time ever, the tuition given to first nations students and their cost of living allowances and so on will be taxed. Thus, in my view, first nations will be able to send fewer students to university because those students have to pay income tax on these student loans and student cost of living allowances given to them by their communities so they can seek post-secondary education.
I raise this because even though there was a huge protest from the Assembly of First Nations, this will be implemented in the next taxation year. This is a shot across the bow on treaty rights, because by the Government of Canada saying it is going to start taxing student allowances it is also saying that it does not see post-secondary education as a treaty right. It sees it as a policy.
The government is trivializing and reducing the fiduciary obligation under aboriginal treaty rights to provide education per se. Nowhere in the Constitution and nowhere in any treaty does it say “education meaning kindergarten to grade 12” is a treaty right. It says “education” is a treaty right. This is a shot across the bow by the government to start to tax those benefits. I am very critical of this.
I want to recognize and pay tribute to the efforts of aboriginal students right across this country under the guidance and leadership of Algonquin College counsellor Kimberley Smith Spencer, who is also the president of the Ontario Native Education Counselling Association. She and a bunch of committed activists and students have developed a petition of 11,000 signatures of people across this country who think it is fundamentally wrong to make this policy shift and start taxing tuition fees and living-out allowances of first nations students, because the predictable consequences will be that there will be fewer first nations students in post-secondary education. It is as simple as that. What a glaring contradiction.
I met just last week with the Minister of Indian Affairs and he itemized for me what his main priorities would be for this parliamentary session. Let us guess what they were. Post-secondary education was number one and housing was number two. Those were his main priorities.
At the same time he is stating that post-secondary education is his main priority, his government is starting to tax this benefit that used to enjoy a tax free status so that first nations students could get the post-secondary education they needed and so that communities could build the administrative capacity they needed.
We all know that the way to go from poverty to the middle class in one generation is through education. Is there anybody here who does not agree that the most important thing we could possibly do as first nations communities are welcomed into the mainstream of Canada is to help them educate a generation of capable, competent and suitably skilled students with graduate certificates from post-secondary institutions?
I cannot help deviating from the topic in this way because we are called upon today to make a speech about the creation of a brand new first nations tax commission and one cannot mention first nations taxation without noticing this glaring contradiction in the policy of the government. It is like having an elephant in the bedroom and trying to pretend it is not there. I cannot not talk about what the government is doing regarding the practical problems that first nations students face.
I know of many communities and I will mention one. Chief Moses Okimaw spoke to me from God's Lake in northern Manitoba. He said his community can only afford to send a few students per year out for post-secondary education.
My time is almost up, but I will just illustrate the scope and breadth of the problem. Yes, post-secondary education is granted to aboriginal people as a treaty right. We view it as a treaty right; the government apparently views it as a policy decision. But it is a bit of a Catch-22 when there is not enough money within the community to send more than a couple of students per year. And now it is taxed. If a student is given $10,000 a year for a living-out allowance for school and has to pay taxes on it, that leaves the student with $5,000 or $6,000 to actually spend. Fewer students will be able to go to school by virtue of this policy shift. I believe it is completely contrary to the government's own stated goals and objectives.
It is completely contrary to all the romantic and flowery language we hear from the Prime Minister all the time that this is the generation of social justice for aboriginal people. If that were true, we would not see a policy direction like this as it pertains to education. The most effective tool to fight poverty in aboriginal communities is to put forward a generation of aboriginal kids who are trained and skilled and have the administrative capacity to lead their people out of poverty and into the mainstream of Canada.
I recognize, pay tribute to and celebrate the actions of the students who are sending this message to the Government of Canada. I know they have brought 11,000 signatures in a petition today, which I will be proud to table in the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity. I know that the people of Canada want the government to listen to this common sense and reasoning.
Lloyd St. Amand: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House in support of the first nations fiscal and statistical management act.
First nations have long sought access to the fiscal and statistical tools available to other governments, the tools with which to operate on a more equal footing within the greater Canadian economy. I want to emphasize again that today these same tools are readily available to governments and businesses which operate outside of Canada's non-aboriginal community, tools which might often be taken for granted.
The first nations fiscal and statistical management act is a key milestone along a path toward ensuring first nations have access to these tools, a path which began some 16 years ago.
In 1988 this Chamber witnessed a rare event, a first nation led amendment to the Indian Act that was targeted at improving first nation access to economic development. Prior to the amendment, neighbouring municipalities would collect property tax from non-Indians living on reserve. As a consequence, many first nation communities were losing these property tax revenues, moneys which other governments would normally use to provide services and build their economies. The loss of these revenues spelled lost economic and employment opportunities and lost opportunities to improve the quality of life on reserve.
Happily, the 1988 amendment received all party support, and all who voted for that amendment to the Indian Act would be pleased to know that it did indeed create opportunity, a foundation from which to build.
For example, in 1989 the first nation led Indian Taxation Advisory Board was formed in order to help first nations build effective, real property tax regimes. In 1995 the First Nations Finance Authority Inc. was established and has worked since then to help first nations effectively invest their revenues earned from a variety of sources.
Bill C-20 draws heavily from the research and experience of both the Indian Taxation Advisory Board and the First Nations Finance Authority Inc. It builds from lessons learned and seeks to provide additional tools which first nations would likewise use to build their economies and ultimately improve the quality of life of their members. Therefore it too deserves our support.
The first nation real property tax system has provided local decision makers with increased financial flexibility, flexibility being but one tool that has been used to improve community services and help build local economies. Building on that foundation of success, the bill offers to first nations that choose to participate many of the valuable tools that are fundamental to self-reliance and economic growth.
The transparency and high standards of financial management and decision making supported by the bill would offer investors the certainty they seek to invest in first nation communities. If our larger objective is to close the socio-economic gap, it makes sense to see that first nation people have the same potential to capture economic opportunities as do other Canadians.
The bill would assist first nation communities to borrow on the bond markets, facilitating their access to low cost capital for infrastructure development, thereby attracting needed investment to first nation communities. The bill would also provide first nations with access to the statistical information they so badly need to make strategic planning decisions.
This strategy is consistent with the new approach, which holds that for there to be real economic opportunity and lasting prosperity first nations must be able to plan and direct their own economies. To this end the bill would establish four national institutions that would assist those first nations that choose to participate in accessing and utilizing the fiscal and statistical tools that all other governments in Canada use to address the well-being of their communities.
The First Nations Finance Authority would provide a means for first nations to pool borrowing requirements and raise capital on the bond markets by securing property tax revenues. The strength of joint borrowing should produce a marketable credit rating. It is estimated that through the FNFA, first nations could raise $12 million of private capital over the first five bond issues.
As my hon. colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, indicated earlier, gaining access to the bond markets would lower the cost of borrowing for first nations by some 30% to 50%. For first nations this would mean that every dollar raised through property taxation has more purchasing power in terms of capital infrastructure development.
The second institution, the first nations fiscal management board would not only certify the high standards of financial management of first nations that wished to gain access to the borrowing pool, it would also be able to provide the same service to non-participating first nations that seek to borrow from other sources. Any first nation, whether it is participating in the taxing or borrowing regimes established under the bill or not, would be able to approach the board for advice and guidance on any issues of financial management.
The third institution is the first nations tax commission. This body would establish the standards for the first nation real property tax system established under the bill and approve property tax laws made by participating first nations. This institution would assist participating first nations to strengthen their property tax system, one that is much more complete and transparent, one which provides greater certainty to taxpayers and potential business partners and investors. Transparency and consistency are essential tools necessary for building strong economies. These tools help to build investor confidence and attract private capital and partners.
The fourth institution, the first nations statistical institute, would collect existing data from a variety of sources to develop a complete, relevant and accurate statistical profile of first nations across Canada.
Currently, first nations do not have at their disposal the basic statistical information available to the majority of Canadians, a situation that hinders their planning and hinders the ability of first nations to make the most of economic opportunities. Information available through the statistical institute would support local decision making, which would ultimately lead to improving the socio-economic conditions on reserve.
Each community will decide if and when it will participate in the opportunities presented. The bill simply provides tools for those who would choose to use them.
The time is now for proceeding with this legislation. The time is now to support those first nations that would use the bill to attract and sustain community investment. The time is now to take another important step toward sustainable, self-reliant first nations governments. The time is now to give first nations access to these tools: flexibility, fiscal certainty, transparency, consistency, strong financial management, access to capital and reliability of data, tools that non-aboriginal communities have long taken for granted.
Jeremy Harrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-20, the first nations fiscal and statistical institutions initiative. The act would provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, create a first nations tax commission, first nations financial management board, first nations finance authority and a first nations statistical institute, as well as making consequential amendments to other acts.
The bill was tabled in the previous Parliament as Bill C-23 but was not passed before dissolution. The purpose of the act is to create the above-mentioned institutions with the intention that those institutions provide first nations with the tools needed for economic development primarily by facilitating access to capital markets for much needed infrastructure development.
We should make no mistake that infrastructure development is sorely needed on first nations right across the country. I know this first hand. In my riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River there are over 30 first nations and 108 separate reserves. Many are in desperate circumstances with incredible and severe problems. Any access to additional tools for economic development and improvements to infrastructure are a positive thing.
The four institutions that would be created by this act are designed to provide participating first nations with the tools they need to build stronger local tax bases, infrastructure and economies. Economic independence is intended to be pursued by improved access to private capital.
Participation will be restricted to ensure that only those first nations that have demonstrated the requisite managerial and financial capacity will have access to the borrowing capacity of these new institutions. The first nations financial authority will allow participating first nations, like local governments, to raise long term private capital at preferred rates for infrastructure development. They will do so by securitizing a portion of their potential real property tax revenues generated under the bill. It is estimated that $120 million in debt financing will be raised over the first five bond issues. These funds will allow first nations to develop infrastructure that supports business and investments.
At this point I would like to stress that the legislation does not provide federal government credit backing or guarantees and that borrowing participation is voluntary, as are the advisory services. First nations choosing to participate in the first nations finance authority will pool together their capital. The FNFA will act as a central borrowing authority by selling bonds on the strength of the first nations collective credit. They will attempt to achieve an A credit rating.
The qualifying and participating first nations will be required to guarantee one another's debt. The finance authority will establish eligibility requirements, issue first nations debentures and re-lend the proceeds to those first nations participating in the borrowing. In concert with such borrowing, the on reserve property tax system will be gradually expanded to provide debt service cash flow. The result will be to provide qualifying first nations with the comparable credit for infrastructure expansion to that available to municipal authorities elsewhere in Canada.
The second new institution that would created under the act, the first nations tax commission, is essentially the natural evolution of the current Indian Tax Advisory Board. The ITAB has worked to build awareness of the real property tax system and provide the tools for its implementation. The FNTC will have the authority to approve first nations tax bylaws, a power that is currently exercised by the minister alone. The FNTC will also provide sample bylaws, training, education and an alternative dispute resolution process to prevent and resolve disputes.
At present, 100 first nations levy property tax, collecting $44 million annually from 28,000 taxpayers. The FNTC will be responsible for the development and regulation of first nation property tax systems. It will assume responsibility for the approval of bylaws, ensure compliance and provide dispute resolution mechanisms for on reserve taxation, providing an alternative to the Indian Act property tax system.
Another new institution mandated in the bill is the creation of the first nations financial management board. The initial task of this new institution will be to provide the independent and professional financial management assessment services required by participating first nations. It will provide professional advice to those first nations that have entered the FNFA borrowing pool and provide training and services related to policy development for all first nations.
The final new institution that would be created under Bill C-20 is the first nations statistical institute. This organization is intended to provide statistical data and analysis of the social, economic and environmental conditions of first nations. It will supplant Statistics Canada in the development of statistical information, support borrowing, credit rating, property taxation and provide information for marketplace investors. It is intended to address the current lack of capacity of first nations to maintain statistical systems needed to match their growing local decision making responsibilities.
I must admit that I have some problems with the creation of this institution. This institute will clearly duplicate the services that are supposed to be supplied by Statistics Canada, a federal agency that receives $600 million per year in funding.
Why does this institute have to be created? The answer is not entirely clear, but to me it would seem to indicate a failure on the part of StatsCan to keep adequate information on first nations across the country.
Although I have stated that I support this bill, I also am somewhat worried about the costs associated with the creation of the new institutions I have talked about. It is estimated that the cost over the first five years will be $67.3 million. This is based on a start-up of $9 million and operational costs over the five year period of $58.3 million. The objective of the financing authority is to be self-financing. I sincerely hope that this is the case. There are also opportunities for some cost recovery with the other institutions, although break-even, by even the best estimates, will occur in 2010.
Another concern I have is that this bill may also underscore a trend we are starting to see develop, namely, a schism between have and have not first nations. Only time will tell in this regard.
It cannot be stressed enough that this bill is an initiative of first nations leaders from across the country. These leaders are seeking the gradual removal of their communities from the Indian Act. They blame much of the on-reserve poverty, joblessness, and the minimal wealth creation on the poor quality infrastructure and institutional limitations of the Indian Act.
Mr. Manny Jules, spokesperson for the first nations fiscal institutions initiative, has said:

This legislation is the bedrock on which you can break the dependency cycle. The creation of the First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Finance Authority, First Nations Financial Management Board and First Nations Statistical Institute will provide the information, certainty, a regulatory framework, confidence and infrastructure required to attract investment to First Nation lands.

The hallmark of this bill is its optional nature, which recognizes the diversity among first nations. This legislation will apply only to those first nations that have chosen to access the full range of services offered by the institutions in the areas of property taxation and financial management. Solid capacities in these areas are essential for the future of first nations from coast to coast.
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-20, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act.
As the Prime Minister said in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and I believe my hon. colleagues will agree, the urgent need to reduce the gap in the development opportunities between the first nations and other Canadians is clearly felt. Canada and the native people recognize that to be able to find a good solution to this situation, it is important to obtain complete statistical information as soon as possible.
Moreover, the main government activities like economic development, social programs, fiscal planning and public accounting all require accurate and relevant statistics. While more and more first nations get ready to take on the responsibilities of self-government, the first nations governments need complete and easily accessible statistical information to be able to take the best decisions possible for their communities.
This bill seeks to establish a first nations statistical institute to give decision makers and first nations citizens better access to the statistical information they need. This institute would take numerous practical actions to meet their needs.
First, the institute would help any first nation interested in meeting its need for local data for the purpose of research, analysis, and eventual decision making. The institute would be in a position to find, analyze and deliver statistical information that would be accurate, complete and appropriately tailored to the specific requirements of the communities or individual groups of first nations.
The first nations would thus have access to the same basic statistics as most other Canadians: statistics on housing, justice, natural resource management, culture, education, the working population and health, to name but a few.
Second, the individual first nations have difficulty setting up and maintaining the statistical systems they require in order to meet their responsibilities and their growing accountability obligations in decision making. These decisions affect the delivery of day to day essential community services, as well as the planning of major development projects.
The proposed statistical institute would help the first nations to develop the necessary ability to use the statistical information and create local information systems in order to better administer programs and funds. By improving the quality of statistics and their comparability with data from other sources, the institute would ensure that the first nations had the necessary statistical tools to help them become more autonomous.
Comparative statistics are essential to community planning and will be needed to attract private investment. It is important for both the first nations and potential investors to have this type of information, since it provides a specific picture of the situation of the first nations concerned and its economic growth potential. WIthout reliable comparative figures, it is extremely difficult to make any precise assessment of the situation of a first nation.
The institute would also have an important role to play in the rationalization of important information on the first nations now in the possession of the federal government.
Among the roles of the institute would be to access information contained in these data bases in order to provide the complete picture of Canada's first nations to which I have already referred. To that end, it would work in partnership with the first nations and the government in order to detect and remedy any shortcomings in the statistical information concerning the first nations, for the mutual benefit of the first nations community and the government departments and agencies.
More specifically, the institute will play a key role by integrating the first nations' perspective in the analysis of the data kept by various federal departments. This will help develop policies and programs that target more accurately the needs of first nations people. This will not only improve the accuracy and current level of information relating to first nations but, by increasing the level of confidence and by demonstrating the importance of quality information, it will also encourage and support the exchange of information between first nations and the federal government.
We must clearly show that the role of the statistical institute will not duplicate that of Statistics Canada but, rather, that it will complement it. For example, the institute will be in a good position to advise Statistics Canada on how to better represent first nations in the national statistical system, and it will also help it develop data collection tools and techniques that reflect and respect first nations' customs and culture. This means that many other first nations would be encouraged to participate in the data collection activities undertaken by Statistics Canada.
Moreover, first nations have numerous information needs that are not covered by Statistics Canada's mandate. The statistical institute will be in a position to identify these needs and will meet them by finding an appropriate source of existing data or by undertaking, alone or in partnership with first nations or statistical organizations, the collection of such data.
It is particularly important to support the real property tax and financing regimes established under the bill. Statistics on residents and commercial businesses on reserves would be useful to first nations to determine whether they should implement a real property tax regime. Moreover, statistical information is an essential component in the development of capital projects through the issuance of first nation bonds by the tax commission.
I will conclude by saying that there is an essential need to create the first nations statistical institute. This institute will provide first nations with statistical information that is adapted to their needs. It would work directly with first nations, first nations' organizations, and in partnership with the government and statistical organizations, to provide a complete, accurate and relevant picture of first nations in Canada.
I urge hon. members to support this bill. I thank all members for their attention.
Lloyd St. Amand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with a brief point of clarification on the finance authority. I have now been provided with the correct figure. It is estimated that through the first nations finance authority first nations could raise $125 million of private capital over the first five bond issues, not the $12 million mentioned earlier.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to rise in this debate on Bill C-20, an act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
I will read the summary of the bill to revive the interest of my colleagues and of listeners:

This enactment strengthens first nations’ real property tax regimes andcreates a first nation bond financing regime, and creates four institutions tosupport those regimes, to promote first nations’ economic development and tostrengthen first nations’ statistical capacity.

This is the purpose of Bill C-20 which is before us today. At this time, we support referral of the bill to committee. We tend to approve of this legislation, even though we have to say it is defective in some ways.
Bill C-20 will make it possible to create an environment that will help first nations achieve self-sufficiency. As sovereignists, we believe that self-sufficiency can only be achieved when a nation owns and controls all its economic levers. We have talked about this issue quite often. When it comes up here, we are very happy to be able to support it.
Of course, we are concerned with the self-government claims of the aboriginals. We repeatedly supported the right to self-government for aboriginal people and, of course, we are pursuing this approach. We believe that this bill will allow first nations to have access to financial tools that other levels of government are already using, if only to have access to the financial market.
First nations will thus be able to participate in a significant way in their economy and to encourage private investments on their lands, which is now more difficult. First nations, which seek to borrow funds to build their community infrastructure, have to deal with transaction costs, processing delays and interest rates that are much too high or even prohibitive.
A backgrounder produced by the First Nations Fiscal Institutions Initiative says this:

A dollar of first nation tax revenue buys 30 to 50 percent less in capital works than that of other governments. The problem is principally rooted in the legislative and institutional framework.

According to first nations who support this legislation, it is 10 times more difficult to build a first nations economy than any other in Canada. This is because some lands do not have services, investors are uncertain and the cost of starting a business is still too high.
As well, according to these first nations, it is the Indian Act that, for 130 years, has prevented first nations from creating their own institutions and participating in the economy.
We hope this bill will help correct the situation and, to repeat what my wise colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent said a few moments ago--and I have often said how wise he is--to be strong, Quebec must have strong first nations with flourishing community economies.
This is exactly what our dear colleague has said. I repeated what he said because I thought it was very important to mention it. We are sometimes asked what an opposition member can do. That happened to me during the electoral campaign in a debate organized for the public. The chief organizer for the Liberal candidate asked me “What are you going to do in the opposition benches?” In fact, we are preventing the government from just going ahead and adopting any bill they want that does not meet the needs of those concerned by this legislation. Why do I talk about it? Because before this bill was tabled today, we have seen Bills C-23 and C-19 that were not acceptable. These are the two bills that had to be amended to produce Bill C-20.
As I was saying previously, many factors explain why we rejected former Bills C-23 and C-19, as did the first nations. We had concerns about the fact that the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act could work against aboriginal rights and reduce the federal government's fiduciary obligations toward the first nations. We were also concerned that the institutions would only serve a few first nations. We also had other concerns.
Naturally, the Bloc Québécois expressed its concerns and apprehensions during the debate on these previous bills. The work accomplished by the opposition and the first nations has paid off—and that is my answer to the man who had come to me with this question—because Bills C-19 and C-23 were unacceptable. As I said, they were eventually amended so as to become Bill C-20 before us today, which is a much better bill.
I must point out that two very important changes have been made to the bill. First, a schedule was added to ensure that the legislation applies to those first nations who wish to participate, because participation is optional. Second, a non-derogation clause was included to protect the aboriginal rights and treaty rights of all first nations.
These changes ensure consistency with the Charter of the Assembly of First Nations as well as the principles of self-determination, the approach taken by the first nations, and the optionality provided for in recent resolutions of the Assembly of First Nations, which were passed, if memory serves, in Saskatoon and ratified again in Charlottetown.
Notwithstanding these improvements, the Bloc Québécois will remain alert. Of course, we will examine the bill based on certain fundamental principles.
First, does this bill protect the right of first nations to self-determination? Will it be beneficial to first nations, particularly to those of Quebec? Will it protect the rights of, and obligations towards, first nations who are not part of the legislation? Will it help to address the fiscal imbalance for the first nations who use this legislation?
More importantly, the Government of Canada must not use Bill C-20 to opt out of its trust responsibilities towards aboriginal people. We know that it is always the government's job to address inequality between aboriginals and non-aboriginals.
With these concerns in mind, the Bloc Québécois will make sure that Bill C-20 really give the first nations access to tools that other levels of government already have in order to take a more active part in their economy.
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the underpinning idea behind the legislation is that economic development and the improvement of the quality of life on the reserves requires a generation of revenue, the ability to raise capital, through much needed capital works, in a commercially acceptable manner with first nations being directly involved in the process.
It is the initial step in self-government of being in charge of one's destiny and being responsible for their own economic development. It is a first step. There is a much bigger journey that must be taken for the first nations to truly arrive at self-government. As Bruce Standingready of the White Bear First Nation put it, “You can only eat an elephant one bite at a time”.
There is much to be done, but this legislation is a good first step. There are many steps yet to be taken.
My colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain took the opportunity to meet with Chief Standingready of the White Bear First Nation in his constituency, and with Bruce Standingready, the nation's technical adviser. He was impressed with their current development in governance, the operation of the White Bear Lake Resort, the Bear Claw Casino and the integration and cooperation with the community of Carlyle.
The White Bear First Nation is willing and eager to take charge of its own destiny and to participate in the development and the use of its natural resources to better the life of its people, on and off reserve.
On the reserve there are many basic issues, like housing and infrastructure. Housing starts are not on schedule, and more than one family is residing in the same house because funding and resources are not there. Infrastructure, like sewer, water, electricity, is vital to enhance the quality of life and to improve the prospects for increased economic development and employment.
The bill would provide the fundamentals and a powerful option for first nations seeking to move forward to have a greater autonomy in terms of determining on reserve priorities and opportunities. It would be optional and it would not derogate aboriginal or treaty rights of the first nations people of Canada.
The mechanics are established through three branches related to the fiscal side and one to the statistical side. The three branches are finance authority, financial management board and a tax commission. They are all geared to provide the capacity to raise much needed finances at the best rate of interest on the long repayment term and without mortgaging our first nations land.
The whole concept depends initially on the ability of the first nations to raise money by taxation of land, interest and rights, the taxation of business activities and the imposition of development costs, just like any other municipality can. This ability, in and of itself, would be of marginal value to first nations if the rest of the concept were not implemented. A typical local community, for example, can raise $6 million in infrastructure from $1 million in annual tax revenues.
A typical first nation must commit three times as much revenue to finance the same amount of infrastructure. This problem is compounded by the fact that governments use their infrastructure to entice investors to build residential, commercial and industrial development on their land.
It is said, a typical community will entice $5 million in private investment for every $1 million of infrastructure. For example, in my province, in the city of Estevan, investors need sewer, water, power, lighting, paving and streets, and that is every community in Saskatchewan.
Finances can be raised only at good rates for long terms on financial markets when the investors are satisfied that moneys lent are commercially safe and secure. To be satisfied of that, they need to be assured that the basis for sound practices are in place at the government level. The bill addresses that.
The local first nations propose a tax law that must be approved by the tax commission, which will only approve it if the first nations community has a certification from the First Nations Financial Management Board. The tax commission promotes a common approach to taxation nation-wide and ensures the integrity of the system. It enables the first nations community to administer the taxation system and develops training programs for the first nations community. Additionally, they reconcile taxpayer interests with the responsibilities of chiefs and councils to administer first nations affairs.
Under clause 5 and clause 10, a budget must be presented for expenditures of revenues with the assurance that a borrowing member will not authorize expenditures of local revenues beyond the budget. There is a provision for audit and for assurance of the integrity of the system.
The financial management board is established and has two particularly important functions. It provides assessment and certification services respecting a particular first nations financial management and financial performance. It manages compliance and has the power to provide co-management or third party management should circumstances require.
The finance authority under clause 57 is a non-profit corporation and it raises the funds. Under clause 74, its responsibility is to secure for its borrowing members through the use of collective property tax revenues into the future, long term financing for capital infrastructure, lease financing of capital assets, as well as short term financing to meet cash requirements. The authority is allowed to issue security bonds and debentures, and to set interest rates, including repayment terms.
It is by these mechanisms that first nations will be able to access national and international financing, not altogether different from municipal government. It models on the municipal finance authority of British Columbia that has 30 years of success and a high credit rating. It is based on the power and concept of pooling borrowing requirements. It is also a leveller.
Smaller and less economically developed first nations receive the benefit of a larger borrowing pool and the ability to borrow at lower rates. Pooled revenue streams from a number of participating first nations will be used to repay the bond holders. The participating first nations are anticipating an A credit rating and that without pledging first nations land.
With respect to the statistical branch, one can argue we presently have Statistics Canada with a cost of millions of dollars. It might be a duplication however. Much can be said that Statistics Canada is not now providing the type of first nations statistics that will be required. The idea has merit. Chief Tom Bressetti stated:

First nations are beginning to realize how important statistics are and how they influence the delivery of programs and services in First Nations Communities. They are important for funding arrangements, fiscal transfers, policy development and infrastructure development. Community leaders will be better equipped to plan and forecast community needs and the community will be in a better position to encourage economic development and investment.

Chief Manny Jules said:

This will provide the tools they need to build their own economies...It represents a positive step towards a better future. It will provide economic growth on First Nations land.

Other sources of revenue may be added to the stream besides property tax, such as resource rents, government infrastructure payments, casino revenue and grants.
I will close with this comment by Harold Calla:

Like all communities in Canada, First Nations have a right to create good lives for their people...the right to be able to plan for the future, to direct how their money is to be spent and to put in place a system of financial management that will provide a foundation for their children and grandchildren.
Its a real step towards placing control over the financial futures of [First Nations] communities back into the hands of First Nations.

That is why I feel this legislation is an important step and why I will support it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to committee)
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it you would find unanimous consent that we see the clock as 2:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Shall I see the clock as 2:30 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Therefore, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:58 p.m.)